LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the punishment order dated 25.04.2003 passed by the opposite party No.4 Superintendent of Police, District Unnao awarding him minor punishment of censure entry and the order dated 29.05.2003 passed by the opposite party no.3 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow, by which the appeal filed against the punishment order was dismissed. The petitioner has further assailed the order dated 08.08.2003 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow, whereby the revision against the appellate order was also dismissed.

(2.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, it transpires that the petitioner while posted as Station Officer at Police Station Ashiwan, District Unnao submitted a challani report under Section 110 (g) Cr.P.C. in the year 2001 by which he sought action against one Mohd. Yunus, son of Shri Shamsher, who was only 7 years old. The charge against the petitioner was that the challani report was submitted by him without any enquiry. The petitioner was issued a show -cause notice on 27.12.2002 asking him to submit reply within 15 days as to why punishment be not given to him.? The said show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 29.12.2002 and he submitted his reply on 12.01.03. The petitioner in reply of the notice prayed that he may be provided the copies of the documents, upon which punishment is sought to be awarded to him. However, he was permitted to inspect the record. The opposite party no.3 Superintendent of Police, Unnao after going through the preliminary enquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner passed the impugned punishment order on 29.04.2003, whereby censure entry was awarded to him and it was directed to be placed on his character roll. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the statutory appellate authority, who is opposite party 3 Deputy Inspector General of Police. The appellate authority also came to the conclusion that submitting challani report against the minor aged about 7 years is a gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and as such the punishment of censure entry was fully justified.? Being dissatisfied with the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a revision before the opposite party no.2 Inspector General of Police, who also dismissed the revision vide order dated 08.08.2003.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment order has been passed against the prescribed procedure under the U.P. Police Regulation. The petitioner was selected as Sub Inspector in the year 1981 -82 and he joined his services as Sub Inspector on 16.02.1982 and since then he is continuously working on the said post and has never been negligent in discharge of his duty. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner under the provisions of Cr.P.C. was only required to submit challani report and it was for the Executive Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and it was none of the part of the duty of the petitioner to conduct any enquiry prior to the submission of the challani report.? Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the provision of Section 110 Cr.P.C., which empowers an Executive Magistrate to require any person to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour for such period not exceeding 3 years as the Magistrate thinks fit. The provision of 110 (g) has been made in respect of those persons, who are habitual offenders. The petitioner being Incharge of the police station after receiving information submitted a challani report and there upon the concerned Magistrate issued show cause notice to Mohd. Younus as per the provisions referred to above and on the notice being issued to Mohd Younus, it was found that he was a child of only 7 years of age.? The disciplinary authority found the petitioner? negligent in discharge of his duty as in the opinion of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner before submitting the challani report ought to have inquired into the matter as to whether the person against whom challani report is submitted, is a habitual offender or was it necessary to take bond from him to maintain peace and good behaviour under the provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C. when the challani report is received by the Executive Magistrate, he issues a notice to such person asking him as to why necessary bond for keeping peace and good behaviour be not taken from him. Thus, the enquiry contemplated under Section 110 Cr.P.C. is done by the Executive Magistrate and not by the police who is only supposed to submit challani report.