Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8276
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK JAIN, J
SANJAY KUMAR TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 36872 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.K. Tripathi
For the Respondents: Anshuman Swamy
Dismissal from service without inquiry for allegations unrelated to employment violates procedural rights under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Dismissal from service - Challenge to dismissal and appellate order - Allegations of rape not connected to official duties - Absence of departmental inquiry before dismissal - Court finds dismissal illegal due to violation of procedural rights. (Paras 11, 12, 20, 27, 29)
(B) Disciplinary Action - Requirements of due process in dismissal cases - Employer cannot dismiss without fair inquiry and opportunity to defend - Grave conduct alone cannot circumvent procedural protections. (Paras 22-24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his dismissal after being falsely implicated in two rape cases, arguing that the actions were taken based solely on FIRs without conducting an inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the Superintendent of Police acted illegally by dismissing the petitioner without an inquiry, emphasizing the need for proper procedure under Article 311(2).
Issues: The main issues centered around the legality of the dismissal without inquiry and whether the allegations were connected to the employment of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without an inquiry or established guilt through a criminal trial, the dismissal action violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which mandates a fair opportunity for defense before punitive measures.
Result: The impugned orders were set aside, and reinstatement with back wages was ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to dismissal based on fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. previous behavior history of the accuser. (Para 3 , 4 , 11) |
| 3. lack of inquiry before dismissal. (Para 12 , 20) |
| 4. procedural rights violation under article 311(2)}. (Para 18 , 24) |
| 5. remedy provided through reinstatement. (Para 27 , 29) |
ORDER
By way of this petition challenge is made to order Annexure P-1dated 17.5.2023 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and further challenge is made to appellate order Annexure P-2 dated 29.4.2024 whereby the appeal against the dismissal order has been rejected by confirming the penalty order.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been working as Constable in MP Police Force and he has been falsely implicated in two case under section 376 IPC, at instance of same woman, who is a member of public, on the grounds that she is a reporter and friend of petitioner, and under influence of intoxicant, the petitioner sexually assaulted her and then repeatedly assaulted her under threat to publicise the photos of the act taken by the petitioner. An FIR (Annexure P-4) was registered against the petitioner on 14.2.2023 at Crime No. 03/2023 at Mahila Thana, Chhatarpur, alleging that between 24.4.2021 to 10.12.2022, the petitioner sexually assaulted the victim. Another FIR at Crime No. 10/2023 was lodged against the petitioner, his father, brothers, sister, as well as many members of family, alleging that 17.4.2023 when she had visited the city in connection with investigation in earlier FIR, then she was abducted and the petitioner and his brothers also raped her.
3. It is further argued that the victim is habitual of lodging such types of FIRs and an FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Hardoi (UP), placed on record as Annexure P-3, was also lodged by her in the year 2021 against a Constable of UP police, alleging that he repeatedly raped her under pretext of marriage.
4. It is contended that trial in the first FIR is pending, while in the second FIR, the police has filed an expunge report against the petitioner, finding no offence to have been committed.
5. It is contended that the respondents could not have taken action against the allegation against the petitioner which was as member of public in his private and personal capacity and only if the petitioner had been convicted by the criminal court then the respondents could have taken action against the petitioner by holding that the petitioner has exhibited an act not expected of a member of a disciplined Force.
6. It is contended that merely upon registration of FIR as member of public in his private capacity, the respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioner and the action is a drastic action which violates all legal principles.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was involved in criminal case under Section 376 and such a conduct is not expected of a member of disciplined Force. The conduct of the petitioner was so grave that enquiry was not reasonably practicable and therefore the authority rightly invoked Article 311(2) of Constitution of India and dismissed the petitioner from service. Reliance is placed on the comments submitted to the concerned Criminal Court while opposing bail application, asserting that on the basis of such police investigation, the misconduct was found proved.
8. Heard.
9. In the present case the allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner has committed rape on a lady. No charge sheet was issued to the petitioner but the order Annexure P-1 which is penalty order mentions as under:-
10. The authority has held that the conduct of the petitioner is contrary to para 64(2)&(3) of M.P. Police Regulations. Para-64(2) relates to a member of police honestly and faithfully fulfilling duties as police officer. Para-64(3) relates to the member of police complying with all rules and cultivate proper regard for its honou
