Court holds negligence cannot be presumed without proof that officer received fresh information about illegal stockpiling after earlier seizure
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a censure entry imposed on a police Chowki In-Charge, ruling that departmental punishment for negligence cannot stand in the absence of material showing that he had received any information or intelligence about fresh stockpiling of explosives after an earlier raid and seizure.
A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh allowed the writ petition filed by Naresh Singh, who had challenged the Tribunal’s order dated March 23, 2026, upholding the punishment.
The case arose from a tragic explosion at the house of one Shadab in Muzaffarnagar on January 22, 2024, in which two minor children lost their lives after a concrete slab collapsed. Earlier, on November 7, 2023, police had seized a large quantity of explosives, firecrackers and raw material from the same premises. A departmental charge was later framed against the petitioner, alleging that he had failed in his duty by not preventing the accused from again collecting and manufacturing explosives after the earlier seizure.
The High Court noted that the petitioner was only the Chowki In-Charge and was not the investigating officer in the earlier case. While the State argued that he had accompanied the raid and was therefore aware of the illegal manufacture of firecrackers, the Court found that mere prior knowledge of the earlier recovery was not enough to establish negligence for the later incident.
The bench specifically observed that the record did not show any material indicating that the petitioner had received any fresh information regarding movement, collection, or renewed stockpiling of explosives after the November 2023 raid. The Court emphasized that police officers act on information, and where no information is received, failure to act cannot automatically be treated as negligence.
The Court also took note of the petitioner’s prompt action after the explosion and held that the State had failed to prove any dereliction of duty on legally sustainable material. Consequently, both the Tribunal’s judgment and the punishment order imposing the censure entry were quashed.
The ruling reinforces the principle that departmental punishment must rest on concrete evidence of misconduct or omission, and not on assumptions drawn merely from a tragic outcome.
Bottom Line :
Departmental punishment on charge of negligence cannot be sustained where there is no material to show that the delinquent officer had received any information or intelligence regarding fresh illegal stockpiling of explosives after earlier seizure; omission to act in absence of such information does not amount to negligence.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, Section 286, Explosives Act, 1884, Section 9B(1)(A)
Naresh Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987065
