Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
K. L. Shrivastava, J.
MAHESH KUMAR SHRIKISHAN TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided On : Apr 11,1985
'Dictionaries' it is said, are not the dictators of interpretation and the words and expressions which are the skin of living thoughts must take their colour from the context in which they occur. [Para 9
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 -- limitation on the fundamental right embodied in the Article -- 'dismissal' and 'removal from service' -- Police Regulations -- Reg. 228.
Constitutional guarantee under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution does not include within itself the further guarantee that the departmental enquiry should also be initiated or conducted by the authority named therein.
The 'removal of service' used in Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations includes 'dismissal of service.'
In view of the express provision in Regulation 228 of the Regulations, the Superintendent of Police was competent to frame charges. 1982 MPWN 383 & 1970 JLJ SN 9 relied on.
[Paras 12 & 14
(3) Interpretation of Statutes -- harmonious construction -- necessity of.
It is a well established cannon of construction that the provisions have to be harmoniously construed to effectuate the object behind them. [Para 13
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 309, 310 & 311 -- doctrine of pleasure -- how far available.
The principle of doctrine of pleasure embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution is subject to the guarantee given by Article 311. Except to the extent of guarantee contained in Article 311 and the provisions of the Rule made under Article 309, the common law right of the Government to terminate the services of its servant continues. 1979 JLJ 632, AIR 1979 SC 429 relied on. [Para 15
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 (2) -- departmental enquiry -- how to be conducted.
It must be remembered that Departmental Enquiry is not a matter of empty formality. It is a serious proceeding intended to give the servant concerned a chance to meet the charge and to prove his innocence. It has to be conducted according to the relevant statutory rules regulating it and the principles of natural justice. Impartiality and fairness amongst other matters are the essential elements of natural justice. 1978 JLJ 182, AIR 1963 SC 812 & AIR 1970 P & H 81 relied on. [Para 17 & 18
(6) Natural Justice -- rule of.
The role of the accuser or the witness and of the Judge cannot be played by one and the same person and it is futile to expect when those rules are combined that the Judge can hold the scales of justice even. AIR 1984 SC 1356, AIR 1962 MP 372 & AIR 1981 SC 136 relied on. [Paras 20 & 21
(7) Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- Rr. 3 (1) (d) & 18 -- Then applicable -- common proceedings -- value of.
Where the Police Regulations are silent, the provisions of the Control and Appeal Rules would apply in departmental inquiries against subordinate police staff.1970 MPLJ 430 relied on.
There is no express provision in the Police Regulations for common proceedings against delinquent servant.
Where there is no order by the competent Authority for common proceedings, the entire proceeding is vitiated being without jurisdiction, irrespective of the question of proof of prejudice which must be implied. 1979 Service Law Journal 84 and 1979 (1) Service Law Reports 878 relied on. [Para 23
(8) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- powers -- when may be exercised.
The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be crippled on any technical considerations allowing flagrantly unjust order to stand and defeating thereby purpose for which that jurisdiction is conferred. M.P. No. 377 of 1982 relied on. [Para 25
( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india filed in January 1983 for quashing the order dated 17-3-1981 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Indore. Respondent No. 2 whereby in the Departmental Enquiry No. 21 /80 held against the petitioner and others, he had been dismissed from service, the appellate order dated 9-7-1982 and also the similar order dated 1-1-1981 passed by the said respondent in Departmental Enquiry No. 22/80.
( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station Palasia, indore, and the Deputy Inspector General is competent to dismiss a Sub-Inspector. The petitioner was subjected to two Departmental Enquiries, one in respect of the activities at about !-30p. m. on 14-12-1980at Police Station, Palasia, Indore and the other in respect of the incident which took place in the evening the same day at Central Kotwali, Indore and their numbers are respectively 22 of 1980 and 21 of 1980. The Departmental Enquiry no. 21 was held by Shri Tiwari and the Departmental Enquiry No. 22 of 1980 was held by Shri Sarwe. Both these Inquiring Authorities were working under the Superintendent of Police, Indore. Charges were framed by shri Ashok Patel, the Superintendent of Police, Indore.
( 3. ) AMONGST other matters, the charges dated 18-12-1980 and 30-12-1980 included allegations that the petitioner along with others indulged in slogan-mongering against Shri Ashok Patel the Superintendent of Police, Indore. In both these Departmental Enquiries there were others who were joined with the petitioner as delinquents.
( 4. ) THE petitioner and the other delinquents had moved an application dated 30-1-1980 to the Superintendent of Police, Indore, respondent No. 3 to the effect that in the charge-sheet the allegation is of slogans and demonstration against him and he is thus directly involved and that they had no hope of justice from any of his subordinates. There was prayer for Departmental Enquiry by other Inquiring Authority. This application was rejected by Shri Ashok Patel, Superintendent of Police, Indore by his order dated 4-2-1981 on the ground that there is no express allegation against the inquiring Officer.
( 5. ) IN the petition it has been stated that Shri Ashok Patel, Superintendent of Police, Indore was against the members of the M. P. Non-gazetted Police Union and he wanted to punish them for their activities. The petitioner was not a member of that union but was dragged in without any basis, ft was contended that the Superintendent of Police was not competent to frame charges against him. The Inquiring Officers were subordinate to the Superintendent of Police and, therefore, they were not impartial. In the Departmental Enquiry reasonable opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner. In all there were five Departmental Enquiries in connection with the same occurrence and in two of them the petitioner was involved. There should have been only one enquiry. It was also contended that there was no material for holding that the charges are proved and yet the dismissal orders were passed. The findings were characterised as perverse. At the end it was stated that the departmental enquiries were a farce. There has been violation of Article 311 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
( 6. ) THE respondents in their joint return denying the petitioners averments in the petition, contended that the Departmental Enquiries were in order and there has been no violation of Article 311 of the Constitution or of the principles of natural justice.
( 7. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended at the outset that in view of Regulation 228 of the Police Regulations, framed under the police Act, 1861 (for short the Regulations) which uses the expression removal from service instead of dismissal from service which was the expression used in the C. P. and Berar Police Regulations fra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
