IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI nd ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 16162 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

MUKESH KUMAR VERMA S/O SHRI AMAR LAL VERMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONSTABLE (GD) (TERMINATED) R/O DARIYAPUR, TEH.

KHILCHIPUR, DISTT. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI A.V. SINGH -

ADVOCATE )

AND

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

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS DISTT-BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BHOPAL RANGE (CITY) DISTT-BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS DISTT-BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

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

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following Signature Not Verified reliefs:-

i) A writ order or direction in the natuer of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orer dated 10.07.2014 issued by respondent no.4 (Annexure-P/4), order dated 05.11.2014 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-P/6) and order dated 09.02.2017 issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-P/8).

ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 11.07.2014 with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, seniority, continuity in service and other benefits.

iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reflect that the petitioner herein was appointed as Constable (GD) vide order dated 23.03.2013. Before entering in service, a criminal case under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the petitioner and his family members. As the petitioner under misconception, did not disclose the factum of pendency of a criminal case, initially a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/3. Later on, vide Annexure-P/4 while dispensing with the further proceedings of the charge-sheet, directly an order of termination of the petitioner’s services was passed on 10.07.2014. The said order was challenged by filing an appeal however, the appeal was dismissed and Signature Not Verified another order prior to decision on appeal on 14.08.2014 was passed by which, the charge-sheet was kept in abeyance. In the meantime, as the petitioner was acquitted vide judgement dated 28.07.2016, he approached this Court vide W.P. No.16056/2016. This Court, vide order dated 28.09.2016, disposed of the petition while directing the respondent to take decision on petitioner’s representation. The representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure-P/8). Thus, assailing the same, this petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, once the respondents decided to issue a charge-sheet, without taking the same to its logical end, abruptly the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. It is contended by the counsel that the impugned order of termination dated 10.07.2014, reflects that the respondents have chosen to pass an order of termination simpliciter after issuing the charge-sheet. The respondents having realized this irregularity subsequently, issued an order dated 20.08.2014 whereby, it was observed that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance and if the petitioner is reinstated in service, the inquiry would be initiated afresh against the petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that as the penalty of termination which has been imposed upon the petitioner is a major penalty, therefore, the conduct of discip