Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Suresh Chand Sharma v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 7498 of 2014 (Gwalior);
Decided on 16.6.2025
Sameer Kumar Shrivastava for petitioner;
G. S. Chauhan, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Headnote:
(1) Civil Services -- police service -- termination of service -- opportunity of hearing -- services terminated on conviction by trial Court -- no provision in Police Regulations to indicate that opportunity of hearing is required in such matters -- held -- no opportunity required to be given, once officer is held guilty and is convicted by trial Court. 2004 (4) MPHT 343 (FB) relied on.
[Paras 9 & 10
(2) Police Regulations -- Reg. 238 -- conflict between Hindi and English texts of statute -- Hindi version of Police Regulation 238 contemplates different exigencies than English version -- Reg. 238 as per Hindi version does not confer any discretion on competent authority after conviction is affirmed in appeal -- but it does not debar authority to pass order of punishment of removal -- Reg. 238 is peremptory in nature for imposition of punishment -- the only discretion granted to authority is in the proviso -- no case for interference is made out. 2008 (2) MPHT 312 (DB) relied on. 1983 JLJ 385 (DB) and 2018 (2) JLJ 210 (DB) referred to. [Paras 12 & 13
(3) Police Regulations -- Reg. 238 -- removal from service -- investigating officer is meant to investigate criminal case in just and fair manner -- if the very act of IO is put to doubt and, after trial, conviction is recorded against him then no other conclusion can be drawn except termination. [Para 13
¼1½ flfoy lsok && iqfyl lsok && lsoklekfIr && lquokbZ dk volj &&fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kflf) ij lsok lekIr && iqfyl fofu;e esa ;g bafxr djus ds fy, dksbZ mica/k ugha fd ,sls ekeyksa esa lquokbZ dk volj visf{kr && gS && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdkjh dks nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus vkSj fl)nks"k Bgjk, tkus ij dksbZ volj fn;k tkuk vko';d ughaA 2004 ¼4½ ,eih,pVh 343 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 10
¼2½ iqfyl fofu;e && fofu- 238 && dkuwu ds fganh vkSj vaxjsth ikBksa esa fojks/k && iqfyl fofu;e 238 ds fganh ikB esa vaxjsth ikB ls fHkUu vR;ko';drk,¡ vuq/;kr && fganh ikB ds vuqlkj] vihy esa nks"kflf) vfHkiq"V gksus ds i'pkr~ fofu- 238 l{ke çkf/kdkjh dks dksbZ foosdkf/kdkj çnÙk ugha djrk && ijarq og çkf/kdkjh dks lsok ls gVkus dk naMkns'k ikfjr djus ls fooftZr ugha djrk && naM vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, fofu- 238 dh ç—fr vo';ikyuh; gS && çkf/kdkjh dks fn;k x;k ,dek= foosdkf/kdkj ijarqd esa gS && gLr{ksi dk ekeyk ughaA 2008¼2½ ,eih,pVh 312 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 1983 ts,yts 385 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2018 ¼2½ ts,yts 210 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13
¼3½ iqfyl fofu;e && fofu- 238 && lsok ls gVkuk && vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh }kjk nkafMd çdj.k dk vUos"k.k _tq vkSj fu"i{k jhfr esa fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && ;fn vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dk dk;Z gh lafnX/k gks tkrk gS vkSj fopkj.kksijkar mlds fo:) nks"kflf) vfHkfyf[kr dh tkrh gS rks lsoklekfIr ds flok; vU; dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 13
ORDER
The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following relief (s) :--
“i) The petition may kindly be allowed with cost: and
ii) The Order of the termination passed on 28.2.2000 (Annexure-P/9) and appellate order dated 30.4.2010 (Annexure-P/14) may kindly be quashed; and
iii) The order of the termination be declared as without jurisdiction, which is pass by res. No.3, and also be declared the appellate order pass by res. No.4 as nonspeaking order as well as without hearing opportunity to the petitioner; and
iv) The direction of the respondents authority be reinstate to the petitioner as on dated of removal, as well as all consequence benefit given as per law which is benefit of the petitioner; and
v) The direction all retire benefit be given to the petitioner; and
vi) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner joined police force in the year 1973 on the post of Sub-Inspector by DIG, Police through Direct Recruitment and he served the department for 27 years. As submitted, he was a sincere and diligent officer. When petitioner was posted as S.I. at Police Station Naryawali District Sagar where petitioner investigated a double-murder case and filed charge-sheet before the competent Criminal Court at Sagar, four persons were named as accused in the charge-sheet. After conclusion of trial, Sessions Court, Sagar, did not find the accused persons guilty and thus they were acquitted. However, Sessions Judge raised doubt over the manner of investigation and genuineness of some documents which were Memorandum, Spot Map and Seizure Memo etc. on the ground that original documents in the charge-sheet submitted in the Court were bit different than that of the photocopies of the charge-sheet papers given to the accused persons. No timing was mentioned in those photocopies. Thus, Sessions Court directed to file a criminal case against petitioner being Investigating Officer under section 194 of IPC. Thereafter, complaint was lodged against petitioner under section 194 of IPC and after charge-sheet, trial conducted.
3. Petitioner faced the trial for offence punishable under section 194 of IPC. Vide judgment dated 13.1.998, trial Court convicted petitioner under section 194 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years’ R.I. and a fine Rs.500/- (Annexure P-5). Petitioner challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. Appeal was partly allowed and sentence was reduced to one year (from three years granted by the Sessions Court), however, the fine amount was enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. An SLP was also preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but got dismissed. Therefore, order of conviction with jail sentence of one year and a fine of Rs.5000/- was maintained.
4. After conviction, it appears that Inspector General of Police (I.G.P.)-Sagar Range, passed order dated 28th of February 2000 and terminated the services of petitioner with immediate effect. Thereafter, appeal/representation preferred by petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 30th of April 2010 (Annexure P-14). Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
5. It is the submission of counsel for petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner before terminating his services from the post of Sub-Inspector. It is further submitted that Regulation 238 (in Hindi version) contemplates that a Police Officer can only be removed when he is convicted from the trial Court as well as Appellate Court and gives discretion to the Authority if the offence is not grievous or involves moral turpitude then case can be considered other than termination. In support of his submissions, he relied upon Hindi version of Police Regulation 238 and on the strength of judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangilal and anoth
