The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Deputy Inspector General had the authority to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the Assistant Sub-Inspector, and considering the petitioner's past penalties was necessary to assess the severity of the penalty.

ORDER : – Petitioner Zaheer Khan has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and orders passed by First and Second Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal.

2. During pendency of this petition legal heirs of Zaheer Khan are brought on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that late Zaheer Khan was promoted on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) on 30-11-1987. While he was posted in Police Station Madiyado charge-sheet has been issued against him. As per charges, petitioner had intentionally written incorrect F.I.R. Complainant Maya Bai complained of rape against her on 3-12-2003. Petitioner wrote the F.I.R under sections 354 and 456 of IPC and he also changed the time of incident from 8.00 A.M to 11.00 A.M. By doing said act, petitioner has diluted the complaint of Maya Bai. Later on complainant approached SDO(P) and Superintendent of Police.

4. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and charge sheet was issued to petitioner. After detailed enquiry, report was submitted on 30-7-2004 and charge No. 1 was found partly proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 were proved against him. Notice of enquiry report was served upon petitioner and petitioner also filed representation against said report. Dy. Inspector General of Police accepted the Inquiry Report and imposed penalty of compulsory retirement of petitioner vide order dated 25-9-2004.

5. Petitioner preferred first and second appeal before Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police which were dismissed vide orders dated 22-11-2004 and 14-3-2005. During pendency of appeal, Sessions Trial was concluded and petitioner was acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 112/2004 by judgment dated 20-1-2005.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Disciplinary Authority committed an error of law in considering the previous record of petitioner and imposing penalty of Compulsory Retirement. Petitioner was not put to notice that his previous record shall be considered otherwise petitioner may have represented regarding his conduct and considering the previous record without notice amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Dy. Inspector General of Police does not have jurisdiction to impose penalty upon petitioner. It is further submitted that findings in inquiry report is perverse and charge No. 1 has not been proved, therefore, charge Nos. 2 and 3 could not be held to be proved against him. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners made a prayer for quashing of order passed by Appellate Authorities and restore all the benefits to petitioner.

7. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing. List of witnesses and documents were supplied to him and he was also given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. After considering the entire material on record, Inquiry Officer found charge No. 1 partly proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 as proved. Disciplinary Authority/D.I.G has accepted the enquiry report and directed compulsory retirement of petitioner. Departmental enquiry has been conducted according to the procedure prescribed and there is no illegality or irregularity in departmental enquiry.

8. Learned Govt. Advocate relied on judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8071/2014 (State of Karnataka and another vs. N. Gangaraj, 2020(4) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 461). Relying on said judgment it is submitted that once Disciplinary Authority has accepted the enquiry report then Court will not exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with findings of fact by re-appreciating the evidence. In view of same, writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. Charge Nos. 1 to 3 are interconnected. It cannot be said that if charge no.1 is partially proved then charge Nos. 2 and 3 could no