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

2024 Supreme(MP) 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Sumit Baghel v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No. 19545 of 2022(J);
Decided on 18.3.2024*

Advocates Appeared:
K. C. Ghildiyal with Kapil Sharma for petitioners; Girish Kekre, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:

Constitution of India -- Art. 311(2)(b) -- M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- Rr.10 (ix), 14 and 15 -- dismissal from service -- police constables dismissed without regular departmental enquiry -- possibility of tampering with evidence and witnesses not satisfactory and proper reason for not conducting aforesaid enquiry -- dismissal order not sustainable in eyes of law -- set aside -- however, respondents granted liberty to conduct enquiry as per rules. (1985) 4 SCC 252, (1987) Supp. SCC 164, (1996) 3 SCC 753, (2000) 10 SCC 196 and (2005) 11 SCC 525 followed. [Paras 8, 9 & 12

Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 311¼2½¼[k½ && e- iz- flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 && fu-10¼ukS½] 14 rFkk 15 && lsokP;qfr && iqfyl dkWULVscy fu;fer foHkkxh; tk¡p ds fcuk lsokP;qr && lk{; rFkk lk{khx.k ls NsM+NkM+ djus dh laHkkouk iwoksZDr tk¡p ugha djus dk larks"kizn rFkk mfpr dkj.k ugha && lsokP;qfr dk vkns'k fof/k dh n`f"V esa fVdus ;ksX; ugha && vikLr && rFkkfi] izR;FkhZx.k dks fu;ekuqlkj tk¡p djus dh Lora=rk iznÙkA ¼1985½ 4 ,llhlh 252] ¼1987½ lIyh- ,llhlh 164] ¼1996½ 3 ,llhlh 753] ¼2000½ 10 ,llhlh 196 rFkk ¼2005½ 11 ,llhlh 525 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8] 9 ,oa 12

ORDER

1. Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, at their joint request, it is heard finally.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 2.8.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.5 whereby the authority invoking the power provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India had dismissed the petitioners from service; order dated 24.9.2021 (Annexure-P/7) passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 2.8.2021 whereunder the appellate authority affirming the order of petitioners’ dismissal had rejected the appeal and also the order dated 10.5.2021 (Annexure-P/9) whereby the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioners got rejected.

3. The brief facts as to comprehend the disputes are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioners being the constables were posted at Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal. On 10.7.2021 at about 09:00 pm, while the petitioners were on patrolling, they found two suspicious boys near gates No.4 and 5 of Minal Residency and on enquiring about them, it was informed to the petitioners by those boys that they are working in GK company situated in Gujarat. Not only this, but the petitioners had also made a search of their vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing registration No.MP-04-SY-4029, in which, those boys were found in illegal possession of Rs.26 lacs. However, it is alleged against the petitioners that they taking Rs.5 lacs out of said amount had permitted those boys to go.

3.1 On 11.7.2021, one Praveen s/o Dheeru Ji Gujrati, who was also working in the GK company made a formal complaint to the in-charge of Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal informing him about the conduct of the petitioners. Thereafter, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Zone-2, Bhopal, namely Rajesh Bhadoriya had made an enquiry in the matter and submitted the report on 13.7.2021 revealing the fact that on 10.7.2021, the petitioners namely Sumit Baghel, Constable No.3568 and Vinod Rawat, Constable No.2533 while on duty at Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal had searched two boys namely Rounak Dewra and Kishan Jala and made an illegal demanded Rs.10,000/- from them. In addition to that, in the report it was also stated that the petitioners had also made a demand of Rs.5 lacs out of Rs.26 lacs which they found in the two wheeler of those boys. In the report, it was mentioned that those boys after making a discussion with Ashwini Bhai Maharaj had handed over Rs.5 lacs to the petitioners. The authority in its report had also stated the fact that the petitioners after keeping Rs.2 lacs out of Rs.5 lacs had handed over Rs.3 lacs to the in-charge of the Police Station namely Pawan Jain saying that two boys leaving the said amount in the side bag of their motorcycle had ran away from spot. It was observed by the authority in its report that the act of the petitioners came under the purview of misconduct and indeed, permitting those boys to go even without conducting proper enquiry or registering an offence against them, was a crime on the part of the petitioner and as such, it was found by the authority that the conduct of the delinquent was contrary to the paragraphs 64(2), 64(3) and 636(d) of the Police Regulations and also under Section 100(7) of the Indian Penal Code.

3.2 Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 14.7.2021 (Annexure-P/3) was issued to the petitioners asking their explanation as to why invoking power provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, they should not be dismissed from service. In pursuant to the said show-cause notice, the petitioners had submitted their reply on 21.7.2021 (AnnexureP/5) wherein narrating the incident in detail, they have denied the allegations levelled against them.

3.3 Since the reply submitted by the petitioners was not found satisfa

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