In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar, challenging a censure imposed on him by the Uttar Pradesh Police for gross negligence and indifference in the discharge of his duties. The court emphasized that such conduct was “highly condemnable” and upheld the decisions of the Uttar Pradesh government and the Allahabad High Court, which had earlier denied relief to the officer. The judgment, delivered by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, reaffirmed that public officials are expected to adhere to their responsibilities and act with diligence, particularly in law enforcement roles.
Background of the Case:
The case involves Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar, who was serving at Police Station Hanumanganj in District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. Sanjay Kumar was issued a censure for alleged gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness in his discharge of duties, as per an order dated November 16, 2021, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh’s Home (Police) Department.
The censure stemmed from a review meeting chaired by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh on September 9, 2021, which focused on the progress of law enforcement investigations. During the review, Sanjay Kumar was identified as one of the officers in charge of investigations that were significantly delayed. This led to a detailed report by the Additional Director General of Police, naming three sub-inspectors, including Sanjay Kumar, as poor performers in completing investigations. Consequently, a penalty of censure was imposed on him via a communication from the Superintendent of Police on March 7, 2022.
Sub-Inspector Kumar challenged this decision in the Allahabad High Court, seeking to overturn the censure entry. After the High Court rejected his plea, he moved to the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12891 of 2022.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue in the case revolved around the procedure followed in imposing the censure on Sanjay Kumar and whether the decision adhered to the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (referred to as “Rules, 1991”).
The appellant argued:
1. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant’s counsel, vehemently argued that the censure was imposed without giving him an opportunity to show cause or present a defense. This, they claimed, violated the principles of natural justice.
2. Non-Adherence to the Rules, 1991: The appellant contended that the process violated Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1991. Specifically, the police department had not issued a written notice informing him of the proposed action or given him the chance to make representations.
3. Unaddressed Claims: The counsel argued that the pertinent claims of the appellant had not been appropriately addressed by the High Court. Additionally, it was pointed out that the State had not filed a counter-affidavit to refute the appellant’s claims.
The State, represented by the Standing Counsel, countered these arguments by stating that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the accusations, including a notice issued by the Circle Officer on September 25, 2021, which sought explanations from the appellant regarding the pending investigations.
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, upheld the censure imposed on Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar. The court ruled that there was no violation of natural justice, and the decision-making process adhered to the relevant procedural rules.
Key Observations by the Court:
– The court noted that the rules under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 were properly followed. Specifically, Rule 14(2) mandates that before imposing minor penalties like censure, the concerned officer should be informed in writing and given a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
– The court pointed out that Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar had been issued a notice by the Circle Officer, Khadda, seeking his explanation. While he had responded, his explanation, which claimed his preoccupation with VIP duties, was deemed unsatisfactory.
– Addressing the appellant’s claim that the decision was made without a proper reply from the State, the court clarified that the matter had been examined based on the records available, including the report by the Additional Director General of Police.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that the censure entry was imposed by the Superintendent of Police, Khushinagar, who was duly authorized under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1991 to impose such penalties. The decision to record the censure entry was thus legally valid, as it followed the proper process.
In concluding, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the contentions raised by the appellant did not hold merit, and there was no procedural or legal fault in the censure imposed.
– The Supreme Court, quoting from the impugned order, highlighted that “the appellant exhibited signs of gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness while performing his duties, which was highly condemnable.”
Case Details:
– Appellant: Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar, serving in Police Station Hanumanganj, Khushinagar District, Uttar Pradesh.
– Respondents: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12891 of 2022).
– Bench: Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta.
– Advocates:
– For the appellant: Counsel emphasized the lack of a fair hearing and non-adherence to procedural rules.
– For the respondents: Standing Counsel for the State countered these claims, highlighting the steps taken to give the appellant an opportunity to respond.
