Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1233 (MP)

Nandkishore v. State Of M. P.

2011-11-01

S.C.SHARMA

body2011
Judgment ( 1. ) PARTIES through their counsel. ( 2. ) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 31-5-2006 passed by the disciplinary authority and an order dated 27-1-2007 passed by the appellate authority, by which a punishment of stoppage of one cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him. THE petitioner's contention is that he is holding the post of Sub Inspector (Police) and the competent disciplinary authority to impose a major punishment is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, however, in case of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, who is not competent to pass an order of punishment. THE order of punishment dated 31-5-2006 is also on record as Annexure P-1 and the same reflects that it has been passed by the Superintendent of Police. Though, the petitioner has raised other grounds also in the writ petition, but the first ground is being dealt with at present. The State Government has filed a reply to the writ petition and in respect of the aforesaid ground it has been stated that the Deputy Inspector General of Police has empowered the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 4-4-2006 to pass an appropriate order in respect of the departmental enquiry and, therefore, by virtue of the order dated 4-4-2006, the Superintendent of Police was competent to inflict the punishment order. The learned counsel for the respondents/State has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 3. ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 4. ) IN the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is working on the post of Sub Inspector (Police). The impugned order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police on 31-5-2006 and a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him. This Court has gone through the statutory provisions as contained in M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the schedule appended to the aforesaid Rules for the Home Department (Police) reflects for imposing the major punishment in respect of Sub Inspector, the authority competent is the Director General of Police. This Court has gone through the statutory provisions as contained in M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the schedule appended to the aforesaid Rules for the Home Department (Police) reflects for imposing the major punishment in respect of Sub Inspector, the authority competent is the Director General of Police. Not only this, the aforesaid point has already been considered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Anil Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and the similar view has been taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court. It is pertinent to note that the police regulations, which are applicable in the State of M. P. are the same regulations, which are applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Chhattisgarh High Court in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 has held under :- "15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it is held that subsequent orders, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, passed by the Inspector General of Police and passed by the State Government do not cure the initial defect, i.e., imposition of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect by an incompetent Authority. 16. As a result and for the discussions made hereinabove, this petition is allowed and the order dated 30-5-2001 (P-1), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh and the order dated 26-2-2003 (P-2), passed by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, through the Assistant Director General of Home Affairs, through the Assistant Director General of Police (Discipline/Complaint), Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits flowing from quashing of the impugned orders. No order as to costs." ( 5. ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Chhattisgarh High Court and keeping in view the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, the same is, accordingly, quashed. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 4- 4-2006 is also of no help to the respondents. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 4- 4-2006 is also of no help to the respondents. The aforesaid letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police has categorically directed the Superintendent of Police to take an appropriate action keeping in view his jurisdiction and, therefore, by virtue of the letter dated 4-4-2006, it cannot be presumed that the powers have been delegated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police to the Superintendent of Police for imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect upon Sub Inspector (Police). ( 6. ) RESULTANTLY, the order dated 31-5-2006 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 27-1-2007 passed by the appellate authority are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for grant of all the consequential benefits. However, a liberty is granted to the respondents to take an appropriate step in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.