Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
S.C. Sharma, J.
Santosh Bharti - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2015
Decided On : 21-06-2016
Preliminary Enquiry - Police Officer - M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - The judgment discusses the conduct of a preliminary enquiry behind the back of the petitioner, reliance on news paper clippings, and the absence of substantive evidence. The court quashes the punishment orders and directs reinstatement and back wages for the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, was subjected to a major punishment of compulsory retirement based on allegations of unauthorised absence, misbehaviour, and alcohol consumption. The preliminary enquiry was conducted without the petitioner's involvement, and the disciplinary authority imposed a fine and later compulsory retirement. The petitioner denied the allegations and submitted evidence of illness and medical certificates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the preliminary enquiry was conducted unfairly, relying on news paper clippings and without substantive evidence. The Enquiry Officer's extensive examination-in-chief and cross-examination were deemed biased, and the findings were considered perverse. The court also noted the absence of medical examination and the petitioner's submission of leave application and medical certificate.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the preliminary enquiry, reliance on news paper clippings, biased conduct of the Enquiry Officer, absence of substantive evidence, and the petitioner's illness and medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair and unbiased departmental enquiries, the requirement for substantive evidence, and the importance of following prescribed procedures, including medical examinations. It also highlighted the need to consider compelling circumstances for absence and the proportionality of punishment.
Final Decision: The court quashed the punishment orders, directed reinstatement, and granted back wages and consequential benefits to the petitioner.
S.C. Sharma, J.
The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by an order passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority dated 04/04/2014 by which a major punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 03/12/2014 passed in appeal by Director General of Police.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Inspector in Reserve Scheme, Dhar (Police) and it is alleged that he was unauthorisedly absent from the duty on 14/09/2012. It is also alleged that on 03/10/2012 at Indore, he took an auto rickshaw and purchased a bottle of liquor. It is further alleged that after consuming liquor, he assaulted the auto driver and misbehaved in public.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid incident, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 04/10/2012. A Preliminary Enquiry took place in the matter and in the Preliminary Enquiry, the petitioner was not associated in any manner. It was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, City Superintendent of Police, Pithampur, Distt. Dhar submitted a preliminary enquiry report. It has been argued by Shri Patne that at no point of time, the petitioner was associated with the preliminary enquiry.
4. The facts of the case further reveal that the petitioner's suspension order was revoked approximately after 15 days by an order dated 27/10/2012 and a charge sheet was issued on 19/11/2012 levelling of two charges of misconduct. The first charge was that on 03/10/2012 under the influence of alcohol, the petitioner has abused the common public and has also abused the senior officers of the department and has assaulted the auto rickshaw driver. The second charge relates to violation of conduct rules on account of incident which took place on 03/10/2012.
5. The petitioner has submitted a detailed and exhaustive reply to the competent disciplinary authority and has categorically denied the allegations levelled in the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority has passed an order imposing a punishment of Rs. 1,000/- upon the petitioner by an order dated 29/12/2012.
6. It has been further contended that the Inspector General of Police has taken suo-motu cognizance of the matter by issuing a show cause notice, by invoking the provision of regulation 270 of the Police Regulation. The petitioner did submit a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and denied the allegations made against him and has also informed the Inspector General of Police that he is the member of Scheduled Caste and has received as many as 367 awards out of which 8 are special awards.
7. The Inspector General of Police by an order dated 09/06/2013 has finally passed an order directing the disciplinary authority to conduct a regular departmental enquiry as provided under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Thereafter, a Presenting Officer and an Enquiry Officer was appointed by order dated 11/06/2013.
8. Shri Patne has vehemently argued before the Enquiry Officer has acted as an Presenting Officer in the present case. He has conducted very extensive examination-in-chief of the petitioner which is consisting of as many as 45 questions (Page No. 64) and the Presenting Officer while submitting his brief has also observed that the Enquiry Officer has conducted a detailed examination-in-chief of the delinquent officer.
9. Shri Patne has argued before this Court that the Enquiry Officer while cross-examining the witness has not at all asked all the clarificatory questions which are permissible, on the contrary, he has conducted a very extensive cross-examination (Page No. 39 and 42). He has also read out the statements of the auto rickshaw driver, on the basis of whose statements, a show cause notice was initially issued to the petitioner. The statement of the auto driver reflects that it was not the petitioner who has misbehaved with him. The auto
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
