IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, specific, and definite charges in disciplinary proceedings, the duty of a superior officer to control and supervise subordinates, and the application of natural justice principles in disciplinary actions.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for setting aside the Charge Memo dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner on the ground that the charges are vague.

2. The petitioner was posted as SHO at Police Station, Patna and two of his subordinate Constables i.e. Constable No.486 – Mukesh Kumar Sahu and Constable Driver No.649 Radhekrishna Sahu, without informing him or any Superior Police Officer, on the basis of an information to the effect that complainant – Chandrika Prasad was in illegal possession of contraband, made a search in respect of the complainant including his motorcycle. By the impugned Charge Memo, the charges were levelled against the petitioner, who was the SHO of the concerned Police Station at the relevant time, that he failed to control and supervise his subordinate staff, therefore, he was duly responsible for the effective actions of his subordinates, whereby, they have committed gross misconduct and negligence in their duties.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Chandrika Pandey made a complaint on 19.9.2016 before the Inspector General of Police to the effect that on 11.9.2016, on account of some personal work, he had gone to Adharsh Chowk, Patna on his motorcycle. On the said date, Constable Radhekrishna Sahu and Constable Mukesh Kumar Sahu intercepted and searched him including his motorcycle by opening its dickey. When the complainant objected to it, they threatened to implicate him in a false case of illegal possession of contraband. Thereafter, the complainant went away and on his return to the same place, both the Constables again made a search and also hurled abuses against him. On a complaint of Chandrika Prasad, an enquiry was conducted by the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, in which, the statements of the complainant, Divesh Pandey, Vijay Kumar Pandey and Brajesh Sahu were recorded. The City Superintendent of Police enquired into the matter and it was revealed that Constable Radhekrishna Sahu and Constable Mukesh Sahu received a secret information through an informant that the complainant is in possession of intoxicative drugs. However, the said Police Personnel, without informing the present petitioner, who was the then SHO of the concerned Police Station, or any Senior Officer proceeded to the place along with the other Constables Shashi Bhushan Singh and Rajbhan Singh Paraste and intercepted the complainant and made a search, on which, no contraband was found from his possession. Further, nothing was suggested for hurling rude abuses against the complainant by the Police Personnel. In the Preliminary Enquiry, the City Superintendent Of Police, Surajpur found Constables Mukesh Sahu and Radhekrishna Sahu guilty as their act was found arbitrary and gross negligence was established in their work and conduct. Thereafter, an Enquiry Report was submitted on 21.10.2006-Annexure P/2. The Superintendent of Police, Koriya, after taking into consideration the said Enquiry Report, issued a Charge Memo on 16.11.2016 and the charges were framed against the two Constables, against whom, the allegations were prima facie found proved by the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur but he did not make any recommendation in the report against the present petitioner with regard to any misconduct on his part. However, the charges were framed against the petitioner and the charge sheet was filed against him for lack of supervision and dereliction of duty. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the City Superintendent of Police had not made any recommendation in the Enquiry Report against the petitioner and further, in the said report, no misconduct was found proved on his part, therefore, the impugned charge sheet issued against the petitioner is vague. Further, in the said charge sheet, it has not been categorically mentioned that on what terms and in what manner, t