Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 32 (MP)

Ganga Ram Choube v. State of M. P.

2005-01-05

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging order of punishment Annexure-A-7 passed by respondent No. 4 compulsorily retiring him from his services on account of misconduct committed by him. The order of punishing authority was affirmed in departmental appeal by respondent No. 3 Inspector General of Police. That order is Annexure-A-9 dated 23-11-1996. 2. This fact is not in dispute that petitioner arrested accused Rajkumar on 13-12-1994 and thereafter petitioner was transferred from Bargi Police Station to Balaghat on 3-1-1995. 3. On account of certain complaints against petitioner a departmental enquiry was set-up against him and he was charge-sheeted. The charge-sheet is Annexure-A-1. On going through the statement in regard to imputation of misconduct mentioned in the charge-sheet it is revealed that allegations against petitioner are that he without collecting necessary evidence in regard to age of accused Rajkumar and by showing him to be 16 years of age, filed a challan in the juvenile Court. Thus, the charge which is framed is that in Crime No. 161 of 1994 registered under sections 363, 376, 343 and 118, Indian Penal Code in order to extend illegal benefit to accused Rajkumar by showing him to be 16 years he was produced in the juvenile Court. For better understanding it would apposite to rewrite the charge which is framed against the petitioner :- 4. The contension of Shri Upadhyaya is that neither the arrest memo was produced in the enquiry proceedings in order to show that petitioner tampered the age mentioned in the arrest memo, nor there is any material in order to hold that petitioner produced accused Rajkumar in the juvenile Court. It has been further contended by the Learned Counsel that there is no satisfactory material on record in order to demonstrate that petitioner submitted the challan before the juvenile Court. 5. Per contra, Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that in order to extend illegal and unfair benefit to arrested accused Rajkumar petitioner showed him to be a juvenile and produced him in the juvenile Court. According to learned Govt. Advocate the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority after scrutinising the case of petitioner in detail, ultimately came to hold that the charge was duly proved and the punishment order retiring petitioner compulsorily was validly passed. 6. According to learned Govt. Advocate the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority after scrutinising the case of petitioner in detail, ultimately came to hold that the charge was duly proved and the punishment order retiring petitioner compulsorily was validly passed. 6. On going through the statement in regard to the imputation of misconduct in the charge-sheet Annexure-A-1 it is revealed that petitioner arrested accused Rajkumar on 13-12-1994, but, by showing him to be 16 years of age a challan was filed by him in the juvenile Court. Indeed, the charge which was actually framed, is not in that regard and the same is otherwise. According to the charge, the petitioner produced the accused by showing him to be 16 years of age in the juvenile Court. According to me, the charge appears to be vague. In the charge nowhere it is mentioned on which date petitioner produced the accused in the juvenile Court. It be seen that in the statement in regard to imputation of misconduct, it has been mentioned that the challan was produced by petitioner by showing the accused to be 16 years of age. Thus, the statement in regard to imputation of misconduct on the basis of which the charge is framed is contradictory to the charge which is actually framed. The Apex Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC 409 in para 42 has categorically held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer cannot take place on information which is vague or indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such matter. There must exist reasonable basis for the disciplinary authority to proceed against the delinquent officer. Since the charge is vague, entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated and according to me, on the basis of vague charge no punishment order can be passed. 7. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate that petitioner by tampering arrest memo changed the age of accused Rajkumar. However, there is nothing on record in order to appreciate the said argument. Similarly there is no material on record in order to show that it was the petitioner who produced accused Rajkumar before the juvenile Court or he filed the challan before the juvenile Court. Advocate that petitioner by tampering arrest memo changed the age of accused Rajkumar. However, there is nothing on record in order to appreciate the said argument. Similarly there is no material on record in order to show that it was the petitioner who produced accused Rajkumar before the juvenile Court or he filed the challan before the juvenile Court. At this juncture, this fact cannot be marginalised and blinked away that on 3-1-1995 petitioner stood transferred to Balaghat and if that is the position, according to me, he could not have filed the challan because according to department's own case the relevant entry of the date of birth of the accused was seized on 18-1-1995 from the concerning school. The learned Govt. Advocate could not point out the exact date on which the challan was filed and, therefore, according to me, petitioner cannot be blamed. 8. In view of above, the punishment order Annexure-A-7 and the order of appellate authority Annexure-A-9 cannot be allowed to remain stand and they stand quashed. The petition is hereby allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to take back petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Looking to the facts and circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.