Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4 (MP)

R. K. Singh v. State of M. P.

2011-01-03

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 8.11.2010 by which the Writ Petition No.62 19/2007 (S) preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It appears that one Ramadhar Patel made a complaint before the M.P. Human Rights Commission, Bhopul (respondent No.6) alleging that his son. namely, Ctandra Bhan Patel. a student of Class XI, was illegally arrested on 9.5.2000 by the appellant, R.K. Singh, and Hiralal Dwivedi, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police of the Police Station, Rampur Baghelan. District Satna. It further appears that despite notice the appellant did not appear before the respondent No.6. However, by an ex-parte order, dated 29.11.2005, the Human Rights Commission found that the allegation regarding demand of Rs.50,000/- is not substantiated, however, the appellant and Hiralal Dwivedi, ASI, are prima facie found liable for violation of human rights of Chandra Bhan Patel and hence. recommended to the State Government to pay compensation to him and also to take suitable action against the appellant and Hiralal Dwivedi. Pursuant thereto, the Inspector General of Police by the impugned order dated 23.8.2006 had directed initiation of departmental proceedings and to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has been paid by the complainant to the responsible police officers. 4. The aggrieved appellant tiled the aforesaid writ petition assailing the aforesaid order dated 23.8.2006. which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal. Hence, this intra-Court appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that an enquiry in respect of those allegations was earlier conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Satna, wherein Hiralal Dwivedi, ASI, was found responsible for the entire episode, but the allegation against the present appellant was not found to be correct. A high-level enquiry was again conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Satna on the direction of the M.P. Human Rights Commission, Bhopal, respondent No.6 and the Superintendent of Police, Satna vide his report, dated 3.7.2001 again found the allegations of demand of money and illegal detention of son of the respondent No.7 against the appellant to be incorrect and unproved and the appellant was give a clean chit. It is further submitted that Hiralal Dwivedi, ASI, who has been found responsible for the alleged charges has already been punished by the Department and thus, there was no occasion for the respondent No.6 to again recommend for initiating action against the present appellant. It is urged that in view of rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which deals with procedure for imposing penalties, the disciplinary authority has to record his prima facie opinion to the effect that a case to proceed departmentally against the delinquent employee is made out and in the absence of such finding by the disciplinary authority, departmental proceeding cannot be initiated. 6. We are not impressed with the submission for the reason that the Human Rights Commission in its order dated 29.1 1.2005 (Annexure p10) has found that the detention of Chandra Bhan Patel was in violation of his human rights, and hence, directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him as an interim-compensation. The Human Rights Commission further recommended the State Government to initiate appropriate departmental proceeding against the appellant and Hiralal Dwivedi, ASI. Pursuant thereto, by the impugned order, dated 23.8.2006 the Inspector General of Police (Complaint) issued a memo and directed initiation of departmental proceedings against the appellant and for recovery of the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant to both the officers. It is this order which has been impugned in the writ petition. 7. The contention that since in the earlier preliminary enquiries the appellant has not been found guilty of the charges and, therefore, initiation of fresh departmental proceedings is not justified cannot be gone into at this stage, for no opinion can be given by this Court at this stage when the departmental enquiry pursuant to the order impugned is yet to be initiated and the authorities have yet not taken any action pursuant to the impugned order. Besides that, all these points can be raised by the appellant as and when departmental enquiry is initiated against him. The contention that no prima facie opinion is recorded against involvement of the appellant cannot be accepted because the departmental proceedings have been recommended on the basis of the report of the Human Rights Commission. Besides that, all these points can be raised by the appellant as and when departmental enquiry is initiated against him. The contention that no prima facie opinion is recorded against involvement of the appellant cannot be accepted because the departmental proceedings have been recommended on the basis of the report of the Human Rights Commission. We are further of the view that since the proceeding is yet to be initiated against the appellant, therefore, expressing any opinion about his innocence or involvement by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would not be appropriate, as it would prejudice the whole proceedings. We have no manner of doubt, that the appellant would be given full opportunity to defend the charges and all his defence would be considered by the Enquiry Officer, in the event departmental proceedings are initiated against him. 8. We, therefore, do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal being without merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.