Allahabad High Court
STATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERSversusINSPECTOR, PREM VEER SINGH RANA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The tribunal's order is set aside as non‑speaking and unseasoned, and the claim petition is restored to the tribunal for further fact‑finding.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a tribunal order dated 14 October 2024 that had set aside disciplinary proceedings against Inspector Prem Veer Singh Rana, alleging that the tribunal failed to consider the respondent's defence and issued a non‑speaking, unseasoned order. The incident involved a fight on 3 February 2022 that resulted in a death, with a complaint filed on the same day. The tribunal dismissed the disciplinary order without addressing the defence that the complainant had spoken of a compromise and the delay in FIR registration. The High Court held that the tribunal’s order was unsustainable as it did not discuss the defence and was therefore non‑speaking, and it quashed the order, restoring the claim petition to the tribunal for further fact‑finding. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a non‑speaking, unseasoned tribunal order on disciplinary proceedings?
- Whether the tribunal erred in setting aside the disciplinary order without considering the respondent's defence.
- Whether the High Court can restore the claim petition to the tribunal for further investigation.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- tribunal order
- non‑speaking order
- restoration of claim petition
- writ jurisdiction
- police misconduct
- death in custody
- compromise claim
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7083 of 2026
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Inspector, Prem Veer Singh Rana And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C., S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Singh, Neetu
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appears for petitioners (State). He submits, under challenge is judgment and
order dated 14th October, 2024 of the tribunal, by which claim petition of
respondent no. 1 was allowed on the disciplinary proceeding orders set
aside. He submits, there was an incident of maar-peet (fighting) resulting in
death of a person. It happened on 3rd February, 2022. Complaint in that
regard was made on the date itself. Specious plea of respondent no. 1 in the
tribunal was his contention of complainant himself saying, there was talk of
compromise and no information given resulting in delayed registration of
FIR. This contention was not considered.
2. Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned advocate appears for respondent no. 1. He
submits, the tribunal correctly found omission to consider his client's
defence and non speaking orders made, for them to be set aside. No
interference is warranted.
3. Paragraph 8 from impugned judgment and order is reproduced below.
"8. It is worth mention here that these statements do not find place in the
punishment order. Thought, the punishment order runes in as many as
more than four pages but the pleas to these effect have not been discussed
or elaborated by the disciplinary authority while passing the punishment
order, which makes the order unseasoned, non speaking and a bald one
and also support the pleas taken by the petitioner that it has been passed
on the basis of predetermined mind as well as without properly
considering the explanation of the petitioner, which cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law."
WRIA No. 7083 of 2026
2
The tribunal proceeded to and set aside the orders made against respondent
no. 1 upon finding no reasons were given. The tribunal did not restore the
matter.
4. The tribunal itself has recorded in impugned judgment and order, there
was this incident and one person was killed. A complaint as of date of
incident was made. Then comes defence of respondent no. 1 based on
statement of complainant that there was talk of compromise and no
information given to explain delay in registering FIR. We being the writ
court will not probe into the facts but it is a grave situation where there can
be assertion of compromise upon a person having been killed, to stop if not
delay investigation. The tribunal is the last fact finding forum. Impugned
judgment and order is set aside and quashed. The claim petition is restored to
the tribunal for probing and ascertaining whether contention of State is
correct that there was on record a complaint filed on the date of occurrence.
Certified copy of this order be forthwith communicated to the tribunal for
State to seek issuance of notice and listing of the claim petition on the
restoration.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
September 28, 2026
sailesh
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…