Heard.

2. This petition is directed against order dated 28-05-1992 passed by the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, dismissing the Mercy Appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and confirming the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bhilai Zone, Bhilai. Against the impugned order dated 28-05-1992, the petitioner preferred Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. Later on, the Tribunal was abolished and the case was received on transfer to this Court.

3. Facts of the case are that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, while he was working as Constable in the Police Department on 27-05-1989 by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, instituting departmental enquiry, on following three charges:-

^^1- Fkkuk ljlhaok esa rSukrh ds nkSjku Fkkuk {ks= ds vijkf/k;ksa 'ks[k bLekby ,oa y{ehdkar ik.Ms; ls nksLrkuk rkYyqdkr j[krs gq, iqfyl drZO;ksa ds foijhr vkpj.k iznf'kZr djukA

2- fnukad 2-04-1987 dks turk ds yksxks gseUr pUnzk ,oa ihdkd Vsyj ds lkFk 'kjkc ihdj dkuwu fo:} rjhds ls ,d gh eksVj lkbZfdy esa lokjh djuk o ,DlhMsaV gksus ij Fkkuk ljlhaok ds vius lkFkh vkj{kdks fu'kke.kh eqUuk] lqUnje.kh feJk vkSj pUnzek ;kno ds fo:} ekjihV dh >wBh fjiksVZ ntZ djkuk o is'kkcanh djrs gq, bUgha deZpkfj;ksa ij 2]620 :i;s pksjh djus dk >wBk bYtke yxkukA

3- fnukad 5-3-1987 dks vijk/kh 'ks[k bLekby ,oa mlds lkfFk;ksa }kjk vkj{kd fu'kke.kh eqUuk dks ihVrs le; ?kVukLFky ij ekStwn gksus ds ckotwn cpkus dk dksbZ iz;kl u djuk o bl izdkj vius drZO; ds ikyu esa ?kksj ykijokgh cjrukA**

The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority appointed Enquiry Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted enquiry. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The petitioner, in his defence, examined two witnesses. Delinquent employee/petitioner was also examined. Finally, the Enquiry Officer prepared the enquiry report, in which, the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. On the basis of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order of imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement on 18-04-1990. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 05-11-1990. Thereafter, one mercy appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 20-03-1991 by the Inspector General of Police, Bhilai. Another mercy appeal was made to the Director General of Police, which was also dismissed vide order dated 28-05-1992.

4. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned order of penalty and the order passed in appeal/mercy appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire departmental enquiry and the consequent order of penalty is vitiated because of serious illegalities and irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the impugned order is in utter violation of the provisions contained in Regulation 230 of the Police Regulations, which mandates supply of enquiry report along with penalty orders. The enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner along with penalty order, which seriously prejudiced him in effective exercise of right of appeal, which is statutory remedy under the law. It is next submitted that the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority neither discusses any evidence nor records any finding, therefore, the order is without reasons and merely because the disciplinary authority had agreed with the report of Enquiry Officer, he was not absolved of his statutory obligation to record his own independent finding by discussing evidence on record, record satisfaction and if warranted, concur with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and therefore, Rule 15(3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (In short “the Rules of 1966”) has been violated. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge sheet and the charges levelled