This article discusses a notable case involving a Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar from Uttar Pradesh, who faced censure for alleged negligence and indifference in his duties. The matter was contested in various legal forums, raising important questions regarding adherence to procedural justice and the appropriate imposition of disciplinary actions within law enforcement.

The appellant, serving as a Sub-Inspector at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, was condemned for gross negligence in his duties via an office order issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) on November 16, 2021. This order followed a review meeting led by the Chief Minister, which assessed the performance of police officials across the state. The appellant was specifically criticized for not demonstrating sufficient interest in the timely disposal of investigations assigned to him. Consequently, a penalty of censure was recorded in his service book on March 7, 2022, by the Superintendent of Police, Khushinagar.

The appellant challenged the censure through a writ petition (Writ-A No. 830 of 2022) in the Allahabad High Court. The petition was dismissed by a single judge on March 23, 2022. An intra-Court appeal (Special Appeal (Defective) No. 150 of 2022) was subsequently rejected by a Division Bench on May 9, 2022, prompting the appellant to seek special leave to appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the imposition of censure violated the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. They contended that no opportunity to respond to the charges was afforded before the censure was imposed, thus breaching principles of natural justice. Specific references were made to Rule 5 and Rule 14(2) of the Rules, which outline the necessity for prior notification and the chance to make representations before any disciplinary action is taken.

The appellant's counsel criticized the High Court's dismissal of their claims, asserting that the assertions went unaddressed, leading to an unjust outcome.

Conversely, the State’s counsel defended the actions taken, arguing that the appellant had been given a prior opportunity to explain his performance in response to a notice from the Circle Officer, which he had done. The authorities maintained that the censure was justified based on a comprehensive report that evaluated the appellant's performance and established that he had failed to meet his investigative responsibilities.

According to the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, specific procedures must be followed when imposing punishments. Rule 4 outlines the various penalties that can be levied, including major and minor penalties. The latter includes censure, which can only be imposed after notifying the officer in writing and providing a chance to respond.

The rules further clarify that the Superintendent of Police has the authority to impose minor penalties, thus establishing the legality of the censure imposed on the appellant.

After thorough consideration, the legal analysis concluded that the actions taken against the Sub-Inspector were in accordance with established rules and procedures. The courts found that adequate opportunity for representation had been provided, and the Superintendent of Police acted within his authority to impose the censure.

The case illustrates the critical balance between accountability and procedural fairness in law enforcement disciplinary actions. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the importance of adherence to both statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.

This analysis serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards required in the enforcement of police conduct and the significance of due process in maintaining the integrity of law enforcement agencies.