Termination from service without a Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry violates principles of natural justice, necessitating quashing of the order.

ORDER

22.10.2021

With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent no.3 Superintendent of Police, Shahdol; whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated after departmental enquiry.

2. It is alleged that the petitioner was working as Head Constable at Police Station Jaitpur, District Shahdol. One complaint was made made by Jaipal Singh against the petitioner. The complaint was to the effect that the petitioner has abused him publicly and taken him from the school. He has beaten him at Khamariya Forest, detained him in the lockup and has demanded some money. On the complaint made by Jaipal Singh, an enquiry was ordered and the same was done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tribal and the report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol. On the basis of the report, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied by him. After departmental enquiry into the matter, the final enquiry report was prepared; and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner. The appeal preferred against the termination order has also been dismissed. Therefore, the present petition is being filed on the ground that no Presenting Officer was appointed in the matter. The Enquiry Officer himself has cross-examined the witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that any bribe was taken by the present petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid lapses were not considered by the Authorities while examining the case of the petitioner. No documents, which have been relied upon by the Enquiry officer were ever given to the employee. The entire proceedings of the departmental enquiry does not disclose that any Presenting Officer was appointed at any point of time. The enquiry report does not disclose that any weightage was given to the defence witnesses. Only placing reliance upon the prosecution witnesses the impugned order has been passed. It is further pointed out that a complaint, dated 01.07.2014 was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, but he has never depose anything for demanding Rs.15,000/- or Rs.3,000/-. Nothing is available like audio tape or any voice recorder or any CCTV Camera footage or any other witness in the enquiry has deposed regarding demand of bribe by the present petitioner. All the defence witnesses have supported the delinquent employee, but no reliance has been placed on their statements. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and has completed nearly 8 years of service in the respondents Department. He was awarded many a times, but the aforesaid aspect was never considered by the authorities. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL Vs. B.

Karunakar and others reported in (1993) 4 SC 727 and in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 and in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. It is submitted that the power of judicial review is very much available to this Court in case when the enquiry conducted by the authorities is not in accordance with the procedure.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contents of the petition and has argued that the order dated 11.05.2015 has never been challenged by the petitioner. When there is no challenge to the appellate orde