The main legal point established is that the disciplinary authority is responsible for determining misconduct, and the court should defer to its findings unless there is no evidence or the decision is disproportionate to the weight of the evidence.

ORDER :

1. By way of the instant petitions, the petitioners challenged the impugned orders dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure P/1), 01.08.2015 & 07.08.2015 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No.1149 of 2016), 14.09.2015 & 24.09.2015 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No. 2272 of 2016), 23.09.2015 & 22.02.2016 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated from the post of Police Constable in the Police Department and appeal and mercy petition filed by the petitioners were also rejected without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as constables in the Police Department on 02.09.2013 and immediately after appointment, they were sent to PTS Borgaon for police training on 26.04.2014 and since then, they were regularly taking training and working in the Police department and thereafter, on 29.04.2014 in vehicle 407 having No. CG-03-0779, 15 newly appointed constable had gone to Kondagaon to purchase the firewood and when they were coming back from there, the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently being under the influence of liquor and consequently, the vehicle met with an accident and 04 newly appointed constables died on the spot and several others were injured. Thereafter, other newly appointed police constables got enraged and locked the main gate of PTS Borgaon and blocked the main road of national highway No.30 which caused long traffic and due to which, the general public suffered.

3. Thereafter, the matter was inquired and petitioners were supplied charge-sheet on 10.07.2014 alleging that the petitioners were also involved in the riot and committed misconduct according to the Civil Service Rule and Police Regulation Act. Pursuant to which, petitioners submitted their reply. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was conducted by Sub Commandant 14th Vahini, CAF Camp Bhilai and thereafter, the petitioners were removed from the services alleging that the petitioners contravened the Rule 6 (1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Act, 1965 and para 64 of General Service Condition Sl. No. 2, 4, 5 and 11 of the M.P. Police Regulation Act. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioners preferred appeals before the respondent No.3 which were rejected vide Annexure P/2. Thereafter, the petitioners again preferred appeals before the Director General of Police/respondent No.2, which were also rejected vide Annexure P/3. Hence, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-

10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure P/1), 01.08.2015 & 07.08.2015 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No.1149 of 2016), 14.09.2015 & 24.09.2015 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No. 2272 of 2016), 23.09.2015 & 22.02.2016 (Annexure P/3) pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order to set-aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2, 3 & 4.

10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the services of the petitioners on the post of Police Constable along with full back wages and all other consequential benefits and found the order passed by the respondent No. 2,3 and 4 is illegal and baseless.

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to compute the seniority and continuity of service from the date of removal of the petitioners to till the date of reinstatement in service of the petitioners and also grant the interest @ 18% per annum in the back wages of removal period.

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and contrary