Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1000 (MP)

Bhola Singh v. State of M. P.

2006-08-22

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2006
ORDER Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as Constable and posted at Police Station, Kharora, District Raipur when the petitioner was served a charge-sheet by order dated 9-9-1991 (Annexure 3) containing following charges: (1) fnukad 4-6-91 dks 3 fnu ds vkkdfLed vodkl ij jokuk gksus ds i'pkr~ fnukad 29-6-91 rd vukf/kd`r:Ik ls vodkl izlkj djrs gq, drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgdj ?kksj ykijokgh iznfZr djukA (2) fnukad 29-6-91 dks 23 x 4 Vkmu x'r M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr gksdj onhZ dh gkyr esa jkc ds us esa ene'r gksdj [kjksjk cl LVSaM esa IkMs jgukA (3) fnukad 30-6-91 dks izkr% x.kuk ls ,oa jkf= esa Fkkuk gkftjh M~;wVh ls vuqkfLFkr jgdj jkc fi;s gkyr esa [kjksjk cl LVSaM esa ?kqers jgukA (4) jkc ihus, vukf/kd`r :Ik ls xSjgkftj jgus ,oa vodkl izlkj djus dk vknh gksuk o nafMr fd, tkus ds mijkar Hkh vius vkpj.k essa lq/kkj u ykukA 2. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner after having a served list of witnesses, list of documents and memorandum of charges. The petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges on 17-9-1991 (Annexure 4) enclosing two medical certificates, one issued by private practitioner and Ors. issued by Assistant Surgeon, Civil Dispensary, Kharora, on an ordinary piece of paper. The enquiry officer- Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Simga, after having examined the case, submitted enquiry report on 23-5-1992 (Annexure 8) holding charge Nos. 1 and 4 as proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 as not proved. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Raipur, disagreeing with the enquiry report on charge Nos. 2 and 3, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 26-5-1992 (Annexure 9). The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice vide Annexure 10. 4. The Disciplinary Authority, having considered reply of the delinquent officer- the petitioner, held all the charges found proved against the petitioner and removed the petitioner from services by order dated 11-6-1992 (Annexure 1). 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police on 25-6-1992 (Annexure 11). The Appellate Authority, having agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissed the appeal by order dated 11-12-1992 (Annexure 2). 6. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police on 25-6-1992 (Annexure 11). The Appellate Authority, having agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissed the appeal by order dated 11-12-1992 (Annexure 2). 6. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 11-6-1992 (Annexure 1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 11-12-1992 (Annexure 2) passed by the Appellate Authority on the grounds that the enquiry is perverse as there was no medical evidence against the petitioner so as to prove that the petitioner was found in drunken condition while performing his duties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/State, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, it is evident that the contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing, is without any basis and deserves to be rejected. With regard to the next contention that there was no medical evidence, which went to prove that the petitioner was inebriated in duty, the petitioner has not produced proper medical certificate but two medical certificates, one issued by private practitioner and Ors. issued by Assistant Surgeon, Civil Dispensary, Kharora, on an ordinary piece of paper, which cannot be given any credence. It is clearly found on the basis of sufficient evidence that the petitioner was inebriated in duty and was found lying on the ground while he was in uniform. Thus, the contention, that there was no medical evidence to prove the inebriated condition of the petitioner, is frivolous. There is sufficient evidence as the enquiry was based on examination of several witnesses and relevant documents. 9. This is well settled principle of law, as held in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996)ILLJ1231SC , State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr. AIR1996SC736 , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (2000)IILLJ648SC , Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (1999)ILLJ604SC , V. Ramana v. A.PS.K.T.C. and Ors. (2005)IIILLJ725SC, State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Mohd. Ayub Naz (2006)ILLJ742SC, Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr. AIR1996SC736 , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (2000)IILLJ648SC , Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (1999)ILLJ604SC , V. Ramana v. A.PS.K.T.C. and Ors. (2005)IIILLJ725SC, State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Mohd. Ayub Naz (2006)ILLJ742SC, Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati (2006)ILLJ988SC, that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process not the decision. In the present case, there is no rationality, illegality or procedural irregularity, which require interference in the findings of the enquiry officer and the decision of the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of punishment of removal from service. 10. The petitioner belonged to a disciplined force, i.e., police. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr. (supra), has observed that a Police Constable, serving in disciplined force, which demands strict adherence to the rules and procedure more than any Ors. department, in absenting himself from duty without permission, has committed grave misconduct. 11. The Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain 2006(2) CGLJ 75, has observed that in view of the nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, it cannot be said the Disciplinary Authority had committed any error imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the respondent, particularly when on several occasions he has been found guilty of misconduct. In the present case, there was not one incident but there were several incidents wherein the petitioner was found inebriated and remained absent from duties as contained in charge No. 4. 12. For the reasons above-stated, there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 11-6-1992 (Annexure 1) and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11-12-1992 (Annexure 2). Thus, this petition dismissed. No order as to costs.