IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI th ON THE 10 OF MAY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 10339 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SMT. SUSHMA TIWARI W/O SHRI RAMMANI PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HEAD CONSTABLE, PRESENTLY POSTED IN POLICE LINE REWA, R/O PUSHPRAJ NAGAR, THANA CITY KOTWALI, REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SHIVAM MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MADHYA PRADESH, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the validity of show-cause notice dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure-P/1) whereby in an enquiry conducted against the petitioner and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority submitted report asking his explanation in response to the finding given by the Enquiry Officer asking the petitioner to submit the same within a period of seven days making it clear that if the reply is not filed within the given time then punishment ex party be inflicted upon him.

Shri Ghildiyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the manner in which show-cause notice issued asking explanation from the petitioner makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority has made up its mind for inflicting punishment against him holding him guilty and as such, it is violation of principles of natural justice because the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is not binding upon the Disciplinary Authority and the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not a final verdict for taking a decision in a disciplinary proceeding unless the Disciplinary Authority considers the explanation given by the delinquent in response to the show-cause notice issued to her. He submits that the show-cause notice issued against the petitioner be set aside and the proceeding initiated against her be also set aside on the ground that it is an empty formality as the authority has already made up its mind to punish the petitioner and that is not the object of conducting a departmental enquiry. In support of his submission, he relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 412 (Chief of Army Staff and Others Vs. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety) and 2006 AIR SCW 494 (Rameshwar Prasad &

Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.)

Per contra, Shri Kekre appearing for the respondent/State submits that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is not correct because he is misinterpreting the language used in the show-cause notice as the Disciplinary Authority was not intending to inflict punishment upon the petitioner, but asking Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL the petitioner if explanation is not given within time, the Disciplinary Authority will proceed ex party and pass appropriate order thereof. Although Shri Kekre submits that show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority can be said to be improperly worded, but the word 'n.Mkns'k' cannot be considered otherwise and the actual meaning and intention of the authority may kindly be appreciated. He submits that there is no substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned show-cause notice and other documents available on record.

Although Shri Ghildiyal has tired to convince the Court that the charge-

sheet issued to the petitioner and charge contained therein is in fact no charge and no misconduct is made out for the