Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 73 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Man Singh

2009-01-15

R.S.GARG, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2009
ORDER (Oral) Garg, J. -- 1. The appellants-State and it's officers being aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.1514/2005(s) quashing the charge-sheets and directing an enquiry into the entire episode by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police are before this Court with a submission that the learned Single Judge was absolutely unjustified in quashing the charge-sheets even when the charge-sheets were making grave allegation against the respondents and by the act and conduct of the respondents, the image of the department's senior officers' was tarnished in the public eyes. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are that on 11.4.2005 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior issued charge-sheet to Maan Singh s/o Suraj Singh and Gajendra Singh s/o Vijay Singh against alleging inter alia that on an enquiry it was found' that the original petitioners acted with gallantry in the confrontation with Prakash Gadariya, who died in the encounter on the said date. The police department through it's senior officers thought that some cash reward should be given to the police constables and other police officers who were members of the encounter team. On 6.4.2005, to honour the said police officers who acted with gallantry, a function was organized in which the senior police officers were to award Rs.5,000/- to each of the person who was member of the encounter team. The present respondents upon call of their names, went on the stage, but refused to receive the cash prizes. This action of the original petitioners was taken to be a misconduct under regulation 64(4) of the Police Regulation and, therefore, a charge-sheet was issued with a clear mention that because of the refusal of the original petitioners the image of the senior officers was tarnished. Apart from that, yet another charge-sheet was issued against them that they were suspended on 6.5.2005 and despite their suspension they were not present on the duty and, as such, they committed misconduct. 3. The petitioners came to the Court with a submission that the charge-sheets were outcome of the malice and, in any case, the charges levelled against the original petitioners could not be termed to be misconduct. 3. The petitioners came to the Court with a submission that the charge-sheets were outcome of the malice and, in any case, the charges levelled against the original petitioners could not be termed to be misconduct. In relation to their absence at their duty, it was submitted that when a person is placed under suspension, he is not required to report on duty every day. The petition was contested tooth and nail by the State Government and it's officers, who thought that because of the misconduct exhibited by the original petitioners their image was tarnished in the public view. The learned Single Judge after placing reliance upon the judgments in the matter of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [2007 AIR SCW 607], and in the matter of State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others [ AIR 2001 SC 343 ], came to the conclusion that if the malice is writ large and the allegations made by the employee against the officers are well founded, then the High Court in it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the charge-sheet. In relation to the second charge-sheet, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the charge mentioned in the second charge-sheet cannot be said to be a misconduct because when the petitioners were under suspension, there could be no question of their regular attendance. The learned Single Judge also found that the petitioners had levelled serious allegation with regard to inclusion of names of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police and their presence in the police party, who participated in the encounter. As many as sixteen persons submitted their affidavits. The petitioners were saying that Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police were not present as members of the police team at the time of the encounter of the Gadariya Dacoit Gang. The learned Single Judge found that when such serious allegations were made and the malice was writ large and prima facie there was no misconduct, issuance of the charge-sheet was bad and was to be quashed. 4. The learned Single Judge after quashing the charge-sheets awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost to each of the petitioners and directed that an enquiry be made by a person not below the rank of Inspector General of Police into the allegation made by the petitioners. 5. 4. The learned Single Judge after quashing the charge-sheets awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost to each of the petitioners and directed that an enquiry be made by a person not below the rank of Inspector General of Police into the allegation made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police, District Shivpuri along with the State Government, in fact, are aggrieved by quashing of the charge-sheets. 6. Smt. Ami Prabal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from perusal of Annexure P-1, the charge-sheet dated 11.4.2005, it would clearly appear that the original petitioners-respondents committed a serious misconduct by not accepting the prizes or rewards. According to her, perusal of regulation 64(4) of the Police Regulation would make it clear that if the prizes are offered and in the public view the recipient refuses to accept, then that would lead to dis-reputation or bring bad name to the senior officers. When this Court informed Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General that what in fact happened at the time of the prize distribution is not mentioned in the charge-sheet, she submitted that from a perusal of Annexure P-1 it would clearly appear that the language employed by the original petitioners was bad. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has read Annexure P-1 the charge-sheet dated 11.4.2005 in extenso. In the said charge-sheet the only allegation was that at serial No.12 the delinquent Maan Singh and at serial No.13 the delinquent Gajendra Singh were invited on the stage, who after putting their appearance on the stage refused to accept the prizes. Beyond that there is nothing in Annexure P-1 to say, suggest, show or prove that what particular language was employed by the said constables or what intemperate language was used. If somebody invites another person to offer him cash prizes or to honour him and if such person refuses to accept the honour, then by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he insulted the person who wanted to honour the other person. How can it be held that if a person refuses to receive the honour, award, reward or the cash prizes he would be insulting the other person, who offers him the rewards etc. How can it be held that if a person refuses to receive the honour, award, reward or the cash prizes he would be insulting the other person, who offers him the rewards etc. In the present matter it appears that the persons who were party in the encounter gang were aggrieved by inclusion of names of the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the range and, therefore, they were not ready to receive the cash rewards. If this was their grievance, then instead of issuing a charge-sheet against the respondents, the State Government through the Director General of Police, should have made an enquiry that in fact inclusion of names of certain officers in the party which encountered with the dacoit gang was correct or such persons were enlisted in the encounter gang only for the purpose of giving of the medals, cash rewards, awards or to add a feather to their cap. 8. After going through the entire charge-sheet Annexure P-1, we have no hesitation in holding that the charge-sheet was an outcome of malice and, in fact, was issued to the police personnel to gag their mouth, so that the truth does not come before the general public. At this stage, we would not decide the question that whether the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the range joined the police party or not in the encounter gang, because this question will have to be decided by the State authorities after making an enquiry as directed by the learned Single Judge. 9. So far as the second charge is concerned, the same clearly would show absolute non-application of mind on the part of the senior police officer. It would be right to say that if a person is placed under suspension, then he is not required to report on duty each and every day unless the service rules, regulations or circulars issued by the employer require or mandate him to report to duty every day. In the present matter it is nobody's case that the original petitioners under some rule, circulars etc. were obliged to report on duty every day. 10. In the present matter it is nobody's case that the original petitioners under some rule, circulars etc. were obliged to report on duty every day. 10. The learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion was not unjustified in holding that the charge-sheet was actuated by malice and, in fact, was an outcome against the retaliation made by the police personnel, who were members of the police party, which encountered the dacoit gang. 11. We are sorry to record that after the orders were passed by the learned Single Judge, the State did not feel content, but brought the matter before the Division Bench. True it is that under the law a litigant is entitled to file an appeal, but it is always expected of the State Government that they would act like a model employer and the State machinery would not be allowed to be used by one or the other officers who want to en-cash the enmity. 12. Ordinarily, after the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the State should have felt content, but unfortunately, the matter has been brought before us unnecessarily. 13. We dismiss the petition with a direction that the State Government shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondents towards cost in addition to what has been awarded by the learned Single Judge. 14. The appellants are hereby directed to adhere to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge that an enquiry should be made by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police into the allegation made by the original petitioners. If the enquiry is not commenced and is not brought to its logical end by the appellant No.1 through its competent officers within six months from today, then it shall be taken to be serious lapse on their part. The appeal is dismissed.