The Indian Supreme Court has upheld a censure penalty against a police officer for failing to complete investigations on time, emphasizing the need for diligence and adherence to procedures.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar, contesting a censure entry recorded in his service record. The Court upheld that the penalty, resulting from Kumar's failure to complete investigations in a timely manner, was duly issued by a competent authority and adhered to established procedural norms.

Sub Inspector Kumar, assigned to the Hanumanganj Police Station, received a censure for "gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness" in the discharge of his duties. This censure was prompted by his failure to meet investigation deadlines, as highlighted in a review meeting chaired by the Chief Minister. Following this, the Additional Chief Secretary issued a censure order, which was subsequently entered into Kumar's service book by the Superintendent of Police.

Challenging these actions, Kumar approached the Allahabad High Court, claiming a breach of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, particularly regarding his lack of an adequate opportunity to respond to the charges. However, the High Court dismissed his claims, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court.

It is noteworthy that, in India, censure constitutes a formal disciplinary action that can be imposed on police officers by authorized personnel, such as an Assistant Commissioner of Police. While censure is a public reprimand indicating that the officer has committed a blameworthy act or omission, it is regarded as a minor penalty aimed at correcting performance and is considered less severe than a warning. Moreover, censure is typically not seen as a barrier to promotion.

The pivotal legal question before the Court was whether the censure entry in Sub Inspector Kumar's service book was recorded in contravention of the principles of natural justice and the aforementioned 1991 Rules.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court referenced Rule 14(2) in conjunction with Rule 5(2) of the 1991 Rules, affirming that, when imposing minor penalties, it is essential for the officer to be notified of the charges and afforded a fair opportunity to respond. The Court noted that on September 25, 2021, Kumar received a notice from the Circle Officer of Khushinagar seeking clarification regarding the pending investigations. In response, Kumar attributed the delays to VIP duties and external responsibilities.

The Court further clarified that the Superintendent of Police possessed the authority to issue the censure under Rule 7(2), confirming that the penalty was duly sanctioned by a competent authority.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the censure was not arbitrary. The order from the Additional Chief Secretary followed a comprehensive review of Kumar's negligence, including his explanations, thereby validating the due process involved in the disciplinary action.

Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Between: Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Date of Judgment: September 27, 2024