Back
2001 Supreme(MP) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.P. Srivastava and R.B. Dixit, JJ.
Hukum Singh Yadav
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 1070 of 2001
Decided On: 19.07.2001
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: D.K. Katare
For Respondents/Defendant:K.B. Chaturvedi, Government Advocate
The M.P. Police Regulations, particularly Regulation 32, have statutory force and govern the authority and nature of disciplinary actions against police officers.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Police Officer - M.P. Police Regulations, Regulation 32
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Station House Officer, faced disciplinary proceedings and was relieved of his post and attached to the Police Lines. He challenged this order, claiming it was arbitrary and mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order was not arbitrary and was issued in accordance with the Director General of Police's circular and M.P. Police Regulations.
Issues: The issues included the authority to issue the order, the nature of the order, and compliance with transfer policies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order was within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police under Regulation 32 of the M.P. Police Regulations and was not a punitive action. The court also emphasized the statutory force of the M.P. Police Regulations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the order relieving the petitioner from his post and attaching him to the Police Lines.
S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. The petitioner who was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Sheopur, is facing disciplinary proceedings which had commenced with the service of the charge sheet against him. The Superintendent of Police, Sheopur passed an order on dated 30-6-2001 relieving him of the charge of the post of Station House Officer temporarily until further orders and attached him with which the Police Lines, Sheopur. This arrangement was made as indicated in the aforesaid order on account of the pendency of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order challenged the same by approaching Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 5-7-2001 dismissed his application filed under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Act holding that the impugned action could not be said to be arbitrary or a mala fide action, and it was clear that the said order had been issued pursuant to a clearly defined policy. It was also observed that the petitioner had not alleged that he was being singled out for the implementation of the policy as disclosed in the GOP issued by the Director General of Police vide the circular dated 25-4-1995.
3. The petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking redress praying for quashing of the impugned orders.
4. We have heard the teamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate representing the respondent/State and have carefully perused the record.
5. It may be noticed that the Director General of Police had issued the aforesaid circular superseding all the previous instructions covering the various matters mentioned therein and issuing new directions which included the directions that those Inspectors against whom departmental proceedings or criminal cases are pending, shall not be posted in the regular District Police Force, and in case major punishment was imposed on them, they will not be entitled to a posting at a police station for a period of one year, wherever on evaluation of the record if considered appropriate, they could be granted such a posting.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that although the Superintendent of Police is the disciplinary authority so far as the petitioner was concerned but as provided under Regulation 221 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, he was not vested with any such power which could authorise him to relieve the petitioner from the charge of the post of Station House Officer and attach him in the Police Lines.
7. A perusal of Regulation 221 of the M.P. Police Regulations indicates that its operation is confined to the disciplinary proceedings relating the Sub- Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors only.
8. A perusal of Regulation 221 of the aforesaid Regulations indicates that its operation is confined to the exercise of the powers of punishment specified thereunder on Head Constables and Constables, Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-Inspectors including the punishment of censure on inspectors as well as the powers to suspend any non-gazetted officer of police pending inquiry against his conduct.
9. The powers of punishment with which a Deputy Inspector-General of Police is vested are enumerated in the regulation 222 of the Regulations which can be imposed on Head Constables, Constables, Assistant Sub- Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and officers of equivalent ranks as well as Subedar, Assistant Police Prosecutors, Police Prosecutors, Inspectors and officers of equivalent ranks. The Deputy Inspector-General also stands vested to suspend any non-gazetted police officers pending enquiry into their conduct.
10. So far as the Inspector-General of Police is concerned, his powers are defined/enumerated in Regulation 223 of the Regulations which included the power to suspend any non-gazetted police officers pending enq
