2025 Supreme(MP) 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Ashish Shroti, J.
Kuldeep Singh Tomar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of M.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13328 of 2022
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Headnote:

(1) Police Regulations (M.P.) -- Reg. 221 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 311(2) -- M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- Rr. 10(ix) and 14 -- dismissal from service -- order passed without conducting enquiry -- based upon preliminary enquiry conducted by CSP and statement of complainant given during investigation of FIR -- held -- dismissing petitioner without conducting departmental enquiry solely taking shelter of Art. 311(2)(b) of Constitution not sustainable in law -- Reg. 221 of Police Regulations only prescribes penalties, does not authorize respondent No. 3 to inflict such punishment without conducting enquiry -- impugned order not sustainable in law -- quashed -- respondents directed to reinstate petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. W. P. No. 8489 of 2023 relied on. [Paras 14 & 27]

(2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R. 10(ix) -- M.P. Police Regulations -- Reg. 221 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 311(2) -- dismissal from service -- various findings given with regard to conduct of petitioner -- observations made in impugned order show that order is not discharge simplicitor but is punitive and stigmatic -- invoking provisions of Art. 311(2)(b) of Constitution and Reg. 221 of Police Regulations shows that respondent No. 2 never intended to simply discharge petitioner, but action has been taken by way of punishment. [Paras 16 & 18]

(3) Police Regulations (M.P.) -- Reg. 221 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 311(2) -- M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- Rr. 10(ix) and 14 -- dismissal from service -- order passed without conducting enquiry -- based upon preliminary enquiry conducted by CSP and statement of complainant given during investigation of FIR -- held -- allegations against petitioner are the foundation for passing impugned order -- in absence of petitioner's conviction in criminal case and for want of departmental enquiry, impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny -- impugned order quashed -- respondents directed to reinstate petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. (1984) 2 SCC 369, (1974) 2 SCC 831 and (1999) 3 SCC 60 followed. (1999) 1 SCC 246, (2010) 8 SCC 220 and (1971) 2 SCC 514 distinguished. M.Cr. C. No. 30166 of 2022 referred to. [Paras 23 & 27]

(4) Police Regulations (M.P.) -- Reg. 221 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 311(2) -- dismissal from service -- FIR was the very foundation of impugned action -- said FIR already quashed holding that no offence, as alleged, has been committed by petitioner -- impugned action liable to be quashed -- subsequent FIR not relevant for adjudicating validity of impugned order inasmuch as it is not the foundation for passing it -- as of yet, it is only an allegation and there is no finding of guilt recorded against petitioner -- respondents at liberty to take action in accordance with law if finding of guilt is recorded against petitioner in future -- impugned order quashed -- respondents directed to reinstate petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. [Paras 25 to 27]

¼1½ iqfyl fofu;e ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fofuŒ 221 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 311¼2½ & eŒçŒ & flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 & fu- 10¼ukS½ rFkk 14 & lsokP;qfr & tk¡p fd, fcuk vkns'k ikfjr & lh,lih }kjk dh xbZ çkjafHkd tk¡p rFkk çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku ifjokfnuh }kjk fn, x, dFku ij vk/kkfjr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & foHkkxh; tk¡p fd, fcuk] dsoy lafoèkku ds vuqPNsn 311¼2½¼[k½ dk vkJ; ysrs gq, ;kph dks lsokP;qr djuk fof/k esa leFkZuh; ugha iqfyl fofu;e ds fofuŒ 221 esa dsoy 'kkfLr;k¡ fofgr gSa] çR;FkhZ Øekad 3 dks tk¡p fd, fcuk og naM vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, çkf/k—r ugha fd;k x;k & vkf{kIr vkns'k fof/k esa leFkZuh; ugha & vfHk[kafMr & ;kph dks leLr ikfj.kkfed Qk;nksa lfgr lsok esa ;Fkkor~ djus dk çR;FkhZx.k dks funs'kA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 8489 lu~ 2023 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 27½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fu-10¼ukS½ & eŒçŒ iqfyl fofu;e & fofuŒ 221 Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 311¼2½ lsokP;qfr & ;kph ds vkpj.k ds laca/k esa vusd fu"d"kZ fn, x, & vkf{kIr vkns'k esa dh xbZ leqfä;ksa ls nf'kZr fd vkns'k lknk lsoksUeqfä dk ugha] vfirq naMkRed vkSj dyaddkjh gS & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 311¼2½¼[k½ rFkk iqfyl fofu;eksa ds fofuŒ 221 ds mica/kksa dk voyac fy, tkus ls nf'kZr gS fd çR;FkhZ Øekad 2 dk vk'k; dHkh Hkh ;kph dh lknk lsoksUeqfä djus dk ugha Fkk] vfirq dkjZokbZ naM ds :i esa dh xbZA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 18½
¼3½ iqfyl fofu;e ¼eŒçŒ½ & fofuŒ 221 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 311¼2½ & eŒçŒ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 & fuŒ 10¼ukS½ rFkk 14 & lsokP;qfr & tk¡p fd, fcuk vkns'k ikfjr & lh,lih }kjk dh xbZ çkjafHkd tk¡p rFkk çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku ifjokfnuh }kjk fn, x, dFku ij vk/kkfjr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vkf{kIr vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vk/kkj ;kph ds fo:) vfHkdFku gSa & nkafMd çdj.k esa ;kph dh nks"kflf) ds vHkko esa rFkk foHkkxh; tk¡p ds vHkko esa] vkf{kIr vkns'k U;kf;d laoh{kk esa fLFkj ugha jg ldrk & vkf{kIr vkns'k vfHk[kafMr & ;kph dks leLr ikfj.kkfed Qk;nksa lfgr lsok esa ;Fkkor~ djus dk çR;FkhZx.k dks funs'kA ¼1984½ 2 ,llhlh 369] ¼1974½ 2 ,llhlh 831 rFkk ¼1999½ 3 ,llhlh 60 vuqlfjrA ¼1999½ 1 ,llhlh 246] ¼2010½ 8 ,llhlh 220 rFkk ¼1971½ 2 ,llhlh 514 çHksfnrA çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 30166 lu~ 2022 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 27½
¼4½ iqfyl fofu;e ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fofuŒ 221 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 311¼21½ & lsokP;qfr & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vkf{kIr dkjZokbZ dh uhao Fkh & mä çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, vfHk[kafMr dh tk pqdh fd ;kph }kjk] ;Fkk vfHkdfFkr] vijk/k ugha fd;k x;k & vkf{kIr dkjZokbZ vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; ijorhZ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vkf{kIr vkns'k dh fof/kekU;rk U;k;fu.khZr djus ds fy, lqlaxr ugha D;ksafd og mls ikfjr djus dk vk/kkj ugha & vHkh rd og vfHkdFku ek= gS rFkk ;kph ds fo:) nksf"krk dk dksbZ fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr ugha & ;kph ds fo:) Hkfo"; esa nksf"krk dk fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tkrk gS rks çR;FkhZx.k fof/k ds vuqlkj dkjZokbZ djus dks Lora= vkf{kIr vkns'k vfHk[kafMr & ;kph dks leLr ikfj.kkfed Qk;nksa lfgr lsok esa ;Fkkor~ djus dk çR;FkhZx.k dks funs'kA ¼iSjk 25 ls 27½

ORDER :

Ashish Shroti, J.

The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been dismissed from service exercising powers under Article 311(2) of Constitution of Indian and regulation 221 of M.P. Police Regulations.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) vide order, dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P/2) and at the relevant time, he was posted at Police Line, Gwalior. The appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years. It is not in dispute that even though the initial probation period of two years is over, the order of confirmation has not yet been passed by the respondents.

3. On 29.04.2022, one Smt. Ravita Vanshkar lodged an FIR against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC & Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequently, vide order, dated 02.05.2022, (Annexure P/6) the petitioner was placed under suspension. A preliminary enquiry was thereafter conducted by City Superintendent of Police Murar, Gwalior.

4. Based upon the findings given in the preliminary enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.05.2022 (Annexure P/7). A perusal of show cause notice goes to show that the petitioner was alleged to have committed grievous offence like rape against the complainant and has thus violated the Police Service Conditions. It was also alleged that the petitioner has exhibited indecent conduct before public in general which has tarnished the image of police department. It is further alleged in the show cause notice that his further continuance in service is not in the interest of the police department because it will adversely affect the employees particularly the women employees of the police department. The action of dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India was proposed against him. The petitioner gave detailed reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances in which the aforesaid criminal case was registered. Immediately thereafter the impugned order was passed by respondent no.3 thereby dismissing petitioner from service based upon the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry report as also the allegations made in the FIR. The petitioner is thus before this Court challenging the order, dated 02.06.2022.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order, submitted that the order of dismissal of service is stigmatic and punitive and, therefore, could not have been passed without conducting enquiry. It is his submission that the dismissal from service is a major misconduct under The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and, therefore, the punishment could not have been imposed upon him without adopting the procedure under Rule 14 of CCA Rules. He further submitted that the respondent no.3 erred in accepting the allegations made against the petitioner in FIR as gospel truth and imposed punishment of dismissal from service without realizing that there is no finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner and even Challan was not filed before the Magistrate. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Govt. of India & Anr. reported (1984)2 SCC 369 as also in the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences, Culcutta & Ors. reported in (1999)3 SCC 60

6. Referring to the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.30166 of 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very foundation of passing of the impugned order of dismissal from service does not exist now inasmuch as it has been found that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that impugned order is liable to be quashed on this gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document