Supreme Court Upholds Censure Against Sub-Inspector for Gross Negligence: “Opportunity to Respond Was Given, No Violation of Natural Justice”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the High Court that rejected the petitioner’s challenge against the censure entry made in his service record. The Court found that the impugned order and subsequent actions taken by the authorities were in compliance with the applicable rules and principles of natural justice.

Facts

The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh, was subjected to a censure order by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), for displaying “gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness” in performing his duties. This censure was recorded in his service book following a video conference chaired by the Chief Minister, reviewing the progress of investigations in various districts. The appellant was one of the three officers identified for unsatisfactory performance in investigating cases. Despite submitting his explanation, the authorities found it unsatisfactory and proceeded to record the censure entry.

Issues

The primary issue was whether the censure order suffered from non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and was issued in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that no notice or opportunity to show cause was provided to him before issuing the impugned order and recording the censure entry. He contended that this was a breach of Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1991, which requires that the delinquent officer be informed in writing and given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. He emphasized that his specific plea was not considered by the High Court and that the State did not file a reply to his petition before the Single Judge of the High Court, thus rendering the assertions in his petition uncontroverted.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents submitted that the appellant had been provided with a notice by the Circle Officer and had duly submitted his reply, which was then found unsatisfactory by the authorities. It was argued that the censure entry was recorded following due process and after considering the detailed report prepared by senior police officials. The respondents claimed that the Chief Minister, in a review meeting, had directed the examination of the performance of investigating officers, leading to the identification of the appellant as one of the officers with unsatisfactory performance. Consequently, the censure was justified and did not violate any procedural requirements.

Analysis of the Law

The Court analyzed Rule 4, Rule 5, and Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 4 classifies penalties into major and minor categories, with “censure” falling under minor penalties. Rule 5 mandates that minor penalties be awarded only after the officer is informed in writing and given an opportunity to respond. Rule 14 prescribes that in cases of minor penalties, a written notice along with a reasonable opportunity to make a representation must be provided to the officer concerned.

Precedent Analysis

The Court did not refer to any specific precedents but interpreted the rules to affirm that the principles of natural justice were followed, given that the appellant was given notice and an opportunity to respond, and his explanation was duly considered.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the authorities complied with the procedures prescribed under the Rules, 1991, and the censure order was passed after evaluating the appellant’s response. The Superintendent of Police was found to be the competent authority to impose the censure. The Court also noted that the Additional Chief Secretary had relied on the detailed report prepared by the Additional Director General of Police, which included the appellant’s explanation, before issuing the impugned order.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the censure order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and upheld the decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court. It observed that the appellant’s conduct warranted the censure, and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Implications

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards while imposing minor penalties on police officers, affirming that as long as notice and an opportunity to respond are provided, minor penalties such as censure can be validly imposed. This ruling could serve as a guiding precedent for similar disciplinary matters within the police force, emphasizing compliance with internal rules and the principles of natural justice.

Also Read – Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in Dispute Between GLAS Trust Company LLC and Byju Raveendran, Orders Status Quo on Interim Resolution Professional’s Actions Until the Judgment is Pronounced