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 imp