Unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and vague charges can lead to quashing of the charge sheet, as it would be unfair and cause prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The issuance of charge sheet levelling five charges became a cause for the disgruntled petitioner to knock the doors of judiciary by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging validity, propriety and legality of order dtd. 27/5/2021 (Annexure P/11).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said charges mainly on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and without any foundation. The challenge has also been made on the ground that the charges levelled relate to the year 2013 and the charge sheet has been issued in the year 2021, therefore on the ground of delay also the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

3. Considering the legal and factual submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and to resolve the controversy involved in the case, it is necessary to consider the facts of the case, which in nutshell are:

4. The encapsulated facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police after participating in selection process conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in the year 2001. Though he belonged to scheduled tribe category but he participated in number of important operations of the police and completed them successfully.

5. The petitioner belongs to batch of 2001 of the State Police Services. His batch-mates were promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 2012-13. The petitioner was also entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 2013 but due to disciplinary action against him he was placed under suspension on 6/3/2009 when he was posted at Dewas as SDO (P) Sonkaksha, although the said suspension was set aside by the competent authority and he was reinstated in service vide order dtd. 31/4/2009 and after reinstatement he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Training Research Institute.

6. In pursuance to registration of a crime against the petitioner vide Crime No. 99/2009 and challan being filed before the competent court, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30/9/2009 and he was proceeded ex-parte and vide order dtd. 22/12/2014 a penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon him.

7. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of disciplinary authority before the appellate authority and vide order dtd. 6/3/2019 the order of removal from service was set aside by the authority and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated and he joined the service back on 7/3/2019.

8. As per the petitioner, earlier when he was suspended on account of challan being filed in Crime No. 99/2009, the trial in the said case was proceeded and the trial was conducted in the Special Court and finally the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. An appeal was preferred against the order of acquittal of the petitioner and the said appeal is still pending in the High Court.

9. As per the petitioner, there were two enquiries pending against him in which he was proceeded ex-parte. The second enquiry was pertaining to an investigation which was conducted by the petitioner way back in the year 2005 in Crime No. 14/2005 in which no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the State Government after examining the matter dropped the said enquiry vide order dtd. 30/4/2019 (Annexure P/7) as the petitioner was not found involved in the alleged offence

10. Thereafter, petitioner moved a representation (Annexure P/8) claiming promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police and other consequential benefits on 13/6/2019 mentioning therein that he has been acquitted and enquiry has also been dropped but merely because an appeal is pending he cannot be deprived to get the benefit of promotion and other benefits.

11. By communication dtd. 3/11/2020 (Annexure P/10), the Police Headquarter sought clarification since the State has preferred an appeal which is pending the benefit of promotion a