SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(MP) 575

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7430 of 2020
Decided On : 07-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Manoj Sharma, Advocate, Utkarsh Agrawal, Advocate

Willful misrepresentation and suppression of material facts can lead to the dismissal of a petition.

Headnote:

Transfer - Violation of Guidelines - Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India - Circular dated 15.10.2014 - [Article 226] - [2006) 8 SCC 1] - The court discussed the violation of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India and others, and the circular dated 15.10.2014 by the Police Headquarters, which provided a bar on posting if a departmental proceeding is pending against the employee. The court found that the petitioner had misrepresented facts regarding departmental enquiries, leading to willful misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, and dismissed the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a police officer, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against transfer orders, claiming violation of guidelines and misrepresentation of facts regarding departmental enquiries.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had willfully misrepresented facts regarding departmental enquiries, leading to suppression of material facts, and dismissed the petition for being devoid of merit.

Issues: Violation of guidelines, misrepresentation of facts regarding departmental enquiries.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's willful misrepresentation and suppression of material facts regarding departmental enquiries led to the dismissal of the petition.

Final Decision: The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Subodh Abhyankar, J. - This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Station House Officer, Police Station Itarsi District Hoshangabad against the order dated 21.3.2020 (Annexure P-1) as also the subsequent transfer order dated 22.5.2020. Vide order dated 21.3.2020 the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Station House Officer, Police Station Itarsi to Station House Officer, Police Station Panchmari and while the aforesaid order was pending adjudication in the present writ petition, the respondents have again passed the transfer order dated 22.5.2020 whereby the earlier transfer order dated 21.03.2020 has been modified and now the petitioner has been transferred from Hoshangabad to PTS Bhauri, District Bhopal.

2. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court and has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in gross violation of the direction/guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 1 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that a police officer, in a field posting, must be posted at one place at least for two years, whereas in the present case the petitioner has joined as SHO at Police Station Itarsi District Hoshangabad only on 1.6.2019. Thus it is submitted that within nine months from the date of his joining the impugned order has been passed which has been subsequently amended vide order dated 22.5.2020 and the petitioner has been transferred from Hoshangabad to PTS Bhauri, District Bhopal.

3. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned for the respondents/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that in the memo of petition the petitioner has averred in para 5.4 that no case is pending against him and in fact no departmental enquiry has ever been initiated against him in his service life, however, the aforesaid fact has been misrepresented by the petitioner as against the petitioner as many as four departmental enquiries were initiated by the orders of the Superintendent of Police (Rail) where the petitioner was earlier posted and which bear registration number as 13/2014, 24/2014, 27/2014 and 28/2014. It is further stated that out of aforesaid enquiries, two enquiries i.e. 13/2014 and 27/2014 stand concluded with the imposition of punishment with the petitioner and other two enquiries i.e. 24/2014 and 28/2014 are still pending. The documents regarding the aforesaid enquiries are also placed on record as Annexure R-1.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the circular dated 15.10.2014 issued by the Police Headquarters, it is clearly provided that there would be a bar of the posting of an employee to the Station Houses if a departmental proceeding is pending against him. The aforesaid circular is also placed on record as Annexure R-3. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was initially transferred vide order dated 21.3.2020, however, subsequently on account of the aforesaid circular dated 15.10.2014 the petitioner's posting as SHO, Panchmari has also been cancelled and now he has been transferred to PTS Bhauri District Bhopal, which is in accordance with law and in line with the aforesaid circular dated 15.10.2014. Thus it is submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Prakash Singh(supra) is not applicable in the present case and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 Dinesh Singh Chauhan who is posted on the post of the petitioner, has also filed reply and has reiterated the stand of the State Government. Additionally, Shri Verma has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanugo Filling Station Vs. State Bank of India,2013 SCCOnlineMP 6528 and in the case of Nikita Wilson Vs. State of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top