CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 08 AHC CK 0340

Sanjay Diwedi and Another vs State Of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 18 August 2009 · Citation: (2010) 124 FLR 153

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abhinava Upadhya, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3108 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 339 words

Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard Sri R.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2.

The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of punishment awarded to him under Rule 14 (1) of the U.P. Police Subordinate (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 against which the petitioner appeal as well as revision has been dismissed. There is no allegation that the enquiry was not conducted in the manner prescribed and the petitioner was not given opportunity of oral evidence or to lead evidence in the said enquiry. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the material that was before the authority was not such that may merit the punishment that has been awarded. The petitioner, however, claims that the charge levelled against him has not been proved in the enquiry, yet he has been awarded minor punishment of reversion to the basic pay scale of the same grade for one year.

3.

The charge against the petitioner is that he addressed the superior authority and spoke to him in a way showing disrespect and in a discourteous manner which is unsuitable for a constable of a disciplined force like the PAC. Upon considering the various materials available on record the aforesaid punishment has been awarded.

4.

This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sitting in appeal against the order of punishment. The only thing to see is whether the enquiry was properly conducted and in the manner prescribed and whether the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case. There is also no allegation that the enquiry that was proceeded against the petitioner was conducted in the manner prescribed under the Rules. From the material available on record it does not in any way appear that the punishment awarded is either harsh or disproportionate to the charges.

5.

In this view of the matter, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.