Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1310 (MP)

RAJENDRA KUMAR CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF MP.

2009-11-26

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J. ( 1. ) Petitioner is working on the post of Sub-Inspector in the Home (Police) Department of the State Government. On the basis of the allegation that while registering Crime No.314/04 he did not register the crime for serious offence under Sections 325, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and registered the same under minor offence of Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, that X-Ray report of injury was obtained belatedly and other irregularities in the investigation of the said crime the fourth respondent Superintendent of Police Mandsaur District inflicted upon the petitioner penalty of Censure vide order dated 08.12.2005 (Annexure P-2). This order of Censure was reviewed by the third respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ratlam Range vide order dated 15.07.2006 and after a preliminary enquiry a charge sheet dated 16.05.2008 (AnnexureP-1) has been issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2. ) Briefly stated on account of the allegations as aforesaid the petitioner was punished by way of Censure vide order dated 08.12.2005 (AnnexureP-2) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur. The aforesaid order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Police was cancelled in suo-moto revision vide order dated 15.07.2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ratlam Range under Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations (for short Police Regulations) being the authority superior to the authority which has passed the order of Censure. Thereafter a preliminary enquiry as ordered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ratlam was conducted through S.D.O. Police Sub Division Garoth. After perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O. Police Sub-Division Garoth the Superintendent of Police Mandsaur submitted his report dated 08.03.2008 before the Deputy inspector General of Police, Ratlam stating therein that petitioner is not guilty of the allegations except to the extent of late receiving of the X-Ray report. After perusal of the said report the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 15.04.2008 directed the Superintendent of Police to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner. In terms of the said, order the impugned charge-sheet dated 16.05.2008 has been issued to the petitioner. ( 3. After perusal of the said report the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 15.04.2008 directed the Superintendent of Police to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner. In terms of the said, order the impugned charge-sheet dated 16.05.2008 has been issued to the petitioner. ( 3. ) It has been contended by Shri D.M.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner that before cancelling the order (AnnexureP-2), of penalty of censure imposed by the Superintendent of Police the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Revising Authority) has not served upon the petitioner a notice giving opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances according to him the order of the Deputy Inspector General and the issuance of the charge-sheet on the basis of such order is contrary to the Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations and is also violative of the principles of natural justice. ( 4. ) Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate on the other hand, supported the action of the respondents and argued that no case for interference is made out. ( 5. ) Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record which was made available by the respondents at the time of hearing, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6. ) Admittedly, for the alleged incident/misconduct the petitioner was punished with penalty of Censure vide order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Police. The said order was cancelled on 15.07.2006 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police by taking the matter in suo-moto revision under Regulation 270 of the Regulations. However, before cancelling the order of penalty of Censure imposed upon the petitioner and ordering for holding departmental enquiry by issuance of charge-sheet the petitioner was not served with a notice giving him opportunity of being heard. Regulation 270 of the Regulations empowers the revising authority to exonerate, remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or order fresh enquiry or order for taking further evidence after recording reasons in writing provided it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity is giving to them for being heard. ( 7. ( 7. ) Thus, before cancelling the order of penalty in exercise of suo-moto powers under Police Regulation 270 and ordering for issuance of the charge-sheet and for holding regular departmental enquiry it was necessary for the revising authority to have issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause and to have given an opportunity of hearing to him, which has not been done. As a result the action of the reviewing authority is not only contrary to the provision contained in proviso of Regulation 270 of Police Regulations but is also violative of the principles of natural justice. ( 8. ) In view of the aforesaid, the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police canceling the order of penalty of Censure passed by Superintendent of Police and order for directing issuance of charge-sheet and for holding departmental enquiry against the petitioner cannot be sustained. As a consequence the said orders and the impugned charge-sheet (AnnexureP-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The order dated 08.12.2005 (AnnexureP-2) by which punishment of Censure was imposed upon the petitioner is restored. ( 9. ) The petition is allowed, with no orders as to costs. Petition allowed.