The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and the consideration of evidence and past record in imposing punishment.

This petition was originally filed under section 19 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the erstwhile M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal and after abolition of the Tribunal the matter was transferred to this Court and got registered as a writ petition.

2. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legal propriety of the order dated 7-4-1999 (Annexure-A/1) whereby he has been removed from the services from the post of Constable in the Police Department and has also challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure-A/2) whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order of removal passed by the Superintendent of Police has been maintained.

3. The facts lying in a narrow compass, succinctly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the District Force on 22-12-1995. He was sent for training which was successfully completed. It is pleaded that while he was working as a Constable in the Police Station, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and the petitioner was charge-sheeted.

4. Reply to the said charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner refuting the charges levelled against him. The respondents had taken a decision to conduct a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the Range Inspector was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that on the basis enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal taking into consideration the enquiry report and the past track record of the petitioner. The appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without proper appreciation of the facts and the evidence. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have acted in the present case in violation of the provisions of Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), 1966 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1966 Rules’] and also the provisions envisaged in the M.P. Police Regulations (for short ‘The Regulations’). It is submitted that in the present case the Enquiry Officer has failed to prepare the report as required under Sub-rule (23) of Rule 14 of the ‘1966 Rules’. The Enquiry Officer is required to assess the evidence in the light of the aforesaid provision as regards the article of charges, as the provisions of Rule 14 especially, Sub-rule (23) of the Rule is parimateria with the provisions of the Police Regulation 228 and the Enquiry Officer is under obligation to assess the evidence and to record reasons before coming to the conclusion in regard to the alleged charges.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case the enquiry officer had reproduced the charges and without assessing the evidence and ascribing any reason held that the charges No. 1 to 3 framed against the petitioner are proved. It is strenuously urged by him that in the present case the victim-girl has not supported the case of the department and there was no material to establish the charges. However, on the basis of surmises and conjectures the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved because the petitioner being a police constable had influenced the complainant who had turned hostile and did not corroborate the allegations. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer further mentioned in the report that the acts of the petitioner in the present case has tarnished the image of the Police and also created disturbance in law and order of the town. On the basis of the aforesaid illegal enquiry report the disciplinary authority without application of mind and appreciation of facts and evidence of the case in proper perspective, passed the impugned order on the basis of the past record. It is submitted by him that as per judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of the State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506 and M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 the past record of a