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

2021 Supreme(MP) 809

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Vivek Rusia, J.
IRFAN AHMED s/o LATE ANWAR AHMED - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 5540 of 2016
Decided On : 25-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant : Prasanna Bhatnagar
For Respondent: Valmik Sakargayen

Compliance with Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules and the requirement for concrete evidence in disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:

Gambling - Disciplinary Action - M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 15(2) - The court discussed the application of Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules and emphasized the requirement for the disciplinary authority to record reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report and to provide its own findings on the charges. The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to comply with this requirement, leading to the quashing of the punishment order and the dismissal of the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a police officer, was charged with failure to control gambling activities and violating police regulations. The Enquiry Officer found the charges not proved, but the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The appellate authority upheld the punishment, leading to the petitioner's appeal to the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disciplinary authority did not comply with Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, as it failed to record reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report and provide its own findings on the charges. The court also noted that the evidence against the petitioner was based on hearsay and not supported by concrete evidence. As a result, the court quashed the punishment order and the appeal.

Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, the sufficiency of evidence, and the consideration of defence witnesses' testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the disciplinary authority to comply with Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules and the lack of concrete evidence against the petitioner.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the punishment order, and dismissed the appeal.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12-6-2015 passed by Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh and appellate order dated 11-8-2015 passed by Inspector General of Police, SAF, Bhopal whereby the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

    (i) That vide order dated 2-5-1986 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable, GRP, Bhopal. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. In the year 2014, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Kurawar, District Rajgarh. Upon secret information on 27-1-2015, the Town Inspector (T.I.) of the Police Station made a raid on the spot where gambling was going on and arrested Baldev Prajapati. When he was being taken to the police station, he told that he had a talk with the present petitioner in Rs. 2000.00 and under his protection, he was indulging in gambling activity. Although the case of gambling was registered against Baldev Prajapati and others, the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh, who issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner dated 12-6-2015. In the charge-sheet, the following two charges were levelled against the petitioner :

      (ii) The petitioner denied the charges by submitting a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet denying the allegations. The Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh being dissatisfied with his reply, decided to initiate the departmental enquiry and vide order dated 3-3-2015 he appointed the SDOP, Sarangpur as Enquiry Officer and SHO, Sarangpur as a Presenting Officer.

        (iii) The Enquiry Officer initiated the enquiry against the petitioner. In support of the charges, the Presenting Officer examined Constable Amit Raghuwanshi as P.W.1 who stated that from the month of November 2014, he was posted in Kurawar Police Station. On 27-1-2015, he along with Banesingh, Laxminarayan and the SHO were patrolling and received the information that Baldev Kumhar of Village Lasudia Ramnath is indulged in gambling activities near “Peer Dargah” at Bus Stand. They reached there and recovered Rs. 780/- slips, papers and pen. He was arrested on the spot and was interrogated, in which he took the name of one Lakkhu Nai who used to pay him the gambling commission. While taking him to the Police Station, he said that he had a talk with Khan Sahab (Thanedar Sahab) in Rs. 2,000/- for his protection. Thereafter, the case was registered against him under the Gambling Act. The same statement was given by Constable Rajesh S/o. Ramlal Yadav (P.W.2), Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Gaud (P.W.3), and Dayasagar Singh, SHO (P.W.4). Rajeev Chaturvedi, SDOP was also examined as P.W.5, who conducted the preliminary enquiry and found charges proved against the petitioner. Banesingh, Head Constable was examined as P.W.6 who has also supported the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner/delinquent. He has also recorded his statement and was cross-examined by PO. After appreciating the evidence that came on record, the Enquiry Officer - Santosh Kumar Dixit vide enquiry report dated 18-5-2015 did not find both the charges proved against the petitioner. He submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police.

          (iv) The Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh being dissatisfied with the enquiry report issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the reply to the show cause notice. Vide order dated 12-6-2015 the Superintendent of Police Rajgarh has imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect with non-regularization of the period of suspension from 27-1-2015 to 23-2-2015.

            (v) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. But vide order dated 11-8-2015, the appellate authority has dismissed the

            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
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top