IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary orders must comply with the principles and provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, including the requirement for valid reasons when interfering with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority.

ORDER :

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of disciplinary authority dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the punishment of reduction of one salary increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. He also challenged the order dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and further challenged the order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No.2 by which the mercy appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that in the year 2008, the petitioner was posted on the post of Head Constable at P.S. Somani, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). A written complaint was made by the Up-Sarpanch of Village Somani to the S.P. making certain allegation of demanding money. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the C.S.P. Rajnandgaon and the report was submitted to respondent No.4 who passed an order on 18.08.2008 (Annexure P/4) whereby the petitioner and one constable namely Rajesh Sahu were punished by stoppage of one salary increment for the period of one year with non-cumulative effect.

3. A revised order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure P/5) was passed by the former Inspector General of Police whereby the punishment imposed by the S.P. dated 18.08.2008 was cancelled and a direction was issued to conduct regular enquiry against the petitioner and another constable Rajesh Sahu.

4. In compliance with the order dated 29.12.2008, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and explanation was called. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and after receiving reply, departmental enquiry was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, District- Rajnandgaon. After completion of departmental enquiry, report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 29.07.2010 (Annexure P/6) to the Superintendent of Police against the petitioner and another constable. On 03.08.2010, a notice was issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner relating to the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. On 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/1), order was passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner was punished with reduction of one salary increment with cumulative effect.

5. On 27.04.2011, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Inspector General of Police (respondent No.3) with the proposed punishment “dismissal from service”. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice issued by respondent No.3, after receiving the reply of the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from the service by order dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P/2). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed by the order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 2. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

“10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

writ of mandamus as to quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P-1), by which the petitioner has been punished by the respondent No. 4 after departmental enquiry reduction of one salary increment with cumulative effect, order dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No.2 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

10.2. The Hon’ble Court further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service with all consequential benefit.

10.3 The Hon’ble Court further be pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/1), 28.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) and 21.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) are arbitrary,