Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Praveen Garg v. State of M. P. &Others
Writ Petition No. 11687 of 2021 (Indore); Decided on26.7.2021
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 (2) (b) -- M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- R. 19 -- provisions of R. 19 are parimateria with provisions of Art.311(2). [Para 7]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 (2) (b) -- M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- R.19 -- termination of service -- police constable arrested in criminal case -- suspended on same day and show cause notice issued -- reply submitted --departmental enquiry not held on ground that it is not practicable to hold enquiry -- service terminated within 3 days from date of issuance of show cause notice -- held -- respondents could have invoked Art. 311 (2) (a) of Constitution or R.19(i) of rules -- before passing any order under Art. 311(2)(b), authority is required to recordin writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry -- incumbent upon respondent to form opinion as to why it would not be practicable to hold enquiry -- statement given by petitioner at time of arrest projected as confession of guilt -- such confession of no value in eyes of law -- cannot be used to terminate services of petitioner without proper and detailed enquiry -- method of inflicting such punishment cannot be circumvented by simply saying that it is not reasonably practicable to conduct enquiry -- order of dismissal quashed -- matter remanded to initiate enquiry against petitioner as provided under R.19(ii) of Rules.(2006) 13 SCC 581 followed. [Paras 11 to 13]
(3) Natural Justice -- opportunity of hearing -- termination of service -- statement given by petitioner at time of arrest projected as confession of guilt -- such confession recorded by police cannot be used to terminate services of petitioner without proper and detailed enquiry -- principles of natural justice not followed. [Para 12]
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Police Regulations -- Regs. 214 and 262 -- M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- R. 23 - -maintainability of writ petition -- availability of alternative remedy -- statutory alternative remedy cannot be said to be effective remedy when there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. (2009) 2 SCC 630 followed. [Para 16]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 311¼2½¼[k½ & eŒÁŒ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 fuŒ19 & fuŒ19 ds mica/k vuqPNsn 311¼2½ ds mica/kksa ds lefo"k;d gSaA ¼iSjk 7½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 311¼2½¼[k½ & eŒÁŒ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 fuŒ19 & lsok lekfIr & iqfyl dkWLVscy vkijkf/kd Ádj.k esa fxjrkj & mlh fnu fuyafcr vkSj dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh & mÙkj fn;k & foHkkxh; tkap bl vk/kkj ij ugha dh xbZ fd tkap djuk O;kogkfjd ugha & dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh djus ds 3 fnol ds Hkhrj lsok lekIr dh xbZ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ÁR;FkhZx.k lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 311¼2½¼ds½ ;k fu;eksa ds fuŒ19¼1½ dk vkJ; ys ldrs Fks & vuqPNsn 311¼2½¼[k½ ds v/khu dksbZ Hkh vkns'k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ] Ákf/kdkjh }kjk fyf[kr esa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr fd tkap djuk ;qfDr;qDrr% O;kogkfjd ugha & ÁR;FkhZ }kjk bl ckjs esa jk; xfBr dh tkuk vko';d fd tkap djuk D;ksa O;kogkfjd ugha gksxk & ;kph }kjk fxjrkjh ds le; fn;k x;k dFku nks"k dh laLohÑfr ds :i esa is'k & fof/k dh n`f"V esa ,slh laLohÑfr dk dksbZ ewY; ugha & mfpr vkSj foLr`r tkap fd, fcuk] ;kph dh lsok lekIr djus ds fy, mldk mi;ksx ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ,slk naM vkf/kjksfir djus ds
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & iqfyl fofu;e & fofu;e 214 rFkk 262 & eŒÁŒ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 & fuŒ23 & ;kfpdk dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk & uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk Li"V vfrØe.k gks rc dkuwuh vkuqdfYid mipkj dks ÁHkkoh mipkj ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼2009½ 2 ,l lh lh 630 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16½
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.7.2020 passed by the respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Ratlam whereby the services of the petitioner, who was posted as Constable have been terminated on account of his involvement in a case registered under section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act at crime No.341/2020 at Police Station-Nagda, District-Ujjain.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving any proper opportunity of hearing and without conducting any formal enquiry, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel has submitted that admittedly, the alleged offence took place on 15.7.2020 whereby the the petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e. on 15.7.2020 itself as he was found to be transporting more than 50 bulk liters of illegal liquor contained in 43 boxes. The petitioner was suspended on the same day and a show cause notice was issued to him and while he was in jail, he also submitted the reply on 18.7.2020 but without considering the reply and without conducting any departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed on 18.7.2020 from the services, i.e. within a period of three days from 15.7.2020. Thus, it is submitted that the order is being arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, counsel has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
To bolster his submissions, Shri Bhatnagar has also relied on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Committee Management and another v. Vice Chancellor and others : [2009 (2) SCC 630]. Para 22 and 23. Counsel has also relied on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and others : [2006 (13 SCC 581]. Para 11.
3. On the other hand, a reply to the petition has also been filed by the State and Ms. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has other efficacious, alternate and statutory remedies available in the form of an appeal under the provisions of Police Regulations 214 and 262 of the Police Regulations and also an appeal under rule 23 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as the C.C.A. Rules of 1966. Thus, it is submitted that instead of having the aforesaid remedy the petitioner has directly approached before this Court and as such the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on his short ground only.
4. On merits, counsel for the respondent has submitted that it has been found that the petitioner along with the other co-accused person was transporting the alleged illegal country made liquor kept in 43 boxes, in an Alto car and the official uniform was also kept in the car. It is also submitted that more than 50 bulk liters unauthorized liquor has been seized from the possession of the petitioner and when he was questioned about it, no explanation was been provided by him and in fact in his statement recorded at that time by the police, he has admitted that he was carrying the aforesaid liquor to supply it to his uncle’s son. His statement is also placed on record. Counsel has further submitted that looking to the conduct of the petitioner, the necessity of any detailed departmental enquiry was considered impracticable, hence, as provided under rule 19 (2) of the C.C.A. Rules of 1966 the order has been passed after serving show cause notice to the petitioner and after receiving his reply. Thus, it is submitted that no case for quashing of the impugned order is made out at this juncture and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In rebuttal, Shri Bhatnagar has submitted that the detailed enquiry could have been disp
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) without conducting a regular departmental enquiry and without proper justification viola....
Disciplinary action under Article 311(2)(b) must be supported by robust evidence; reliance on mere presumptions about witness intimidation without conducting an inquiry contravenes natural justice pr....
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) invalid without cogent, objective reasons showing inquiry impracticable; FIR involvement and witness fear presumptions insufficient if criminal probe exonerates empl....
Dismissal from service matter - Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 clearly indicate that provisions of Revision are not mandatory in nature and are clearly at discretion of Officer whose appeal has been reject....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
