SANJAY YADAV
N. K. Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of MP – Respondent
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. Petitioner calls in question the propriety of the charge sheet dated 21.6.2010 in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Petitioner is an Inspector in Police Department and has been charge-sheeted that while posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Sarai, district Singrouli on 17.9.2008 he did not lodge the full report regarding the complaint of rape of complainant's daughter and instead lodged a false report in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 148 to the effect that 3 pages of book No. 102 from page 23 are missing.
3. The charge-sheet since has been served by the Inspector General of Police Rewa zone Rewa, the petitioner questions his competency to serve the charge-sheet, on the ground that the petitioner is the gazetted designated officer and his appointing authority is the State Government and the charge-sheet could be served only by the appointing authority as per Rule 13 of M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
4. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1966 delineate the authorities who could initiate the proceedings. It stipulates:
13. Authority to institute proceedings.- (1) The Governor or any other authority empowered
1. Inspector General of Police and another v. Thavasiappan (1996) 2 SCC 145;
2. Commissioner of Police v. Jayasurian and another (1997) 6 SCC 75;
4. Director General E. S. I v. T. Abdul Razak (1996) 4 SCC 708;
5. Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh 1970 (1) SCC 108;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.