The disciplinary authority must have substantial evidence to support findings in misconduct cases; inadequate evidence renders such findings void. Procedural fairness is essential in disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26/7/2013 (Annexure P/4), whereby, the punishment of reduction of pay- scale by one increment for one year with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him on account of certain misconduct found proved against him in departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24/10/2013 (Annexure P/3), whereby, his appeal against the order of punishment was dismissed. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 2/3/2016 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 5/5/2021(Annexrue P/1),whereby, his mercy appeal and the review application have been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior. It is alleged against him that on 21/6/2012, two suspects namely Rahul Valmiki and Monu Khatik were nabbed at checking point by Assistant Sub Inspector - Ramniwas Sharma in relation to theft of a motorcycle. Aforesaid two persons were sent to Police Station under escort of petitioner and another Constable Susheel Chauhan. It is alleged against the petitioner that he unauthorisedly let free Rahul Valmiki.

3. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the then City Superintendent of Police Shri Arvind Dubey, who submitted his report on 23/7/2012 (Annexure P/5). The allegation against the petitioner was found prima facie correct. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was served to the petitioner on 27/7/2012 (Annexure P/6), wherein, following two charges were levelled against him:-

4. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet which was not found satisfactory and accordingly the departmental enquiry was conducted. The then City Superintendent of Police Ms. Pratibha Tripathi was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted the disciplinary enquiry. As many as eight prosecution witnesses were examined in support of charges while the petitioner examined three witnesses in his defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted her report to the disciplinary authority which is brought on record as Annexure P/9. The Enquiry Officer did not find the charges proved against the petitioner.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, who is also the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, reconsidered the matter. He did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and held the charges proved against the petitioner based upon the statements of ASI - Ramniwas Sharma (PW/5), Constable-Susheel Chauhan (PW/4), Constable- Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW/6) and Additional Superintendent of Police- Arvind Dubey (PW/8). A show cause notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner on 28/6/2013 (Annexure P/10), whereby, the copy of enquiry report was also forwarded to him and the petitioner was asked to give his explanation within a period of five days. The petitioner gave his explanation on 5/7/2013 (Annexure P/13) again denying the allegations made against him. The disciplinary authority then passed the impugned order dated 26/7/2013 (Annexure P/4), whereby, the punishment of reduction in pay-scale by one increment for one year with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24/10/2013 (Annexure