Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 64 (MP)

Bal Krishna Arya v. State of M. P.

2011-01-17

S.C.SHARMA

body2011
ORDER 1. With consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, arguments heard finally and the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 3.11.09, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Indore directing the Enquiry Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry. 3. Petitioner's contention is that he is working on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. A charge sheet was issued against him on 8.1.08, alleging misconduct and thereafter the Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter. Petitioner has further stated that after conducting a detailed and exhaustive enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner of the alleged misconduct by submitting a report dated 27.4.09. 4. Petitioner's grievance is that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order dated 3.11.09 directing the Enquiry Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry which is not at all permissible. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 3.11.09. 5. A reply has been filed in the matter and stand of the respondents/State is that the Enquiry Officer has committed various irregularities while conducting the departmental enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority being dissatisfied by the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer, has remanded the matter back for conducting the departmental enquiry as per legal provisions. Respondents have stated that the petitioner should not feel aggrieved in the matter and the respondents shall also be granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner after conducting a detailed and exhaustive enquiry after following the prescribed procedure contained in MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The Disciplinary Authority, as stated by the respondents, being dissatisfied by the Enquiry Report, has passed the impugned order dated 3.11.09 and the impugned order reveals that the Disciplinary Authority has directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry. Rule 15 of the Rules. 1966 reads as under:- "15. The Disciplinary Authority, as stated by the respondents, being dissatisfied by the Enquiry Report, has passed the impugned order dated 3.11.09 and the impugned order reveals that the Disciplinary Authority has directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry. Rule 15 of the Rules. 1966 reads as under:- "15. Action on the inquiry report: - (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provision of rule 14 as for as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the article of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servants, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make any order imposing such penalty (but in doing so it shall record reasons in writing): Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making or imposing any penalty on the Government servant." 8. The aforesaid statutory provisions of law empowers the Disciplinary Authority to remit the matter to the Enquiring Authority for further enquiry. However in the present case, instead of remitting for further enquiry, a de novo enquiry has been ordered. 9. Resultantly, as the impugned order has been passed contrary to the statutory provisions, the same is hereby quashed. However, the Disciplinary Authority is free to take an appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions as contained in Rule 15 of the Rules, 1966. The Disciplinary Authority shall certainly be free to order for further enquiry or to disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer by issuing an appropriate show cause notice in the matter. 10. The Disciplinary Authority shall certainly be free to order for further enquiry or to disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer by issuing an appropriate show cause notice in the matter. 10. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed.