Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1416 (MP)

Yogendra Singh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2014-11-03

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2014
ORDER : PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the charge sheet dated 20-12-2013 issued by Inspector General of Police, Ujjain Zone for conducting departmental enquiry. In brief the case of petitioner is that he is working as Inspector in the Police Department and Inspector General of Police has issued the impugned charge sheet who is not the Competent Authority. 2. Counsel for petitioner placing reliance upon the order of Division Bench, dated 28th June, 2013 in W.P. No. 6206/2011 (S) in the matter of Arun Prakash Yadav v. State of M.P. and others, has submitted that only the Superintendent of Police is competent to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner, therefore, the Inspector General of Police is not the Competent Authority to issue the charge sheet. 3. As against this, Counsel for respondents has submitted that subsequently the Police Regulations have been amended and Inspector General of Police is the Competent Authority to impose penalty and is therefore, competent to issue the charge sheet. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. The Division Bench at Gwalior in the matter of Aran Prakash Yadav (supra), taking note of Regulation 228 of M.P. Police Regulations has taken the view that only the Superintendent of Police is competent to issue charge sheet to any police personnel holding the rank subordinate to that of SP and all the authorities, superior or inferior to the SP are excluded under Regulation 228 to issue charge sheet to any such police personnel. The Division Bench in the matter of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), has held as under:-- "19. It would be appropriate at this stage to decipher the real intent and purport of the Regulation 228 for finding out as to whether any other authority superior or inferior in rank to SP can also exercise the power of issuance of charge sheet against an officer subordinate in rank to SP. For convenience, the relevant extract of the Regulation 228 is reproduced below:-- '228. For convenience, the relevant extract of the Regulation 228 is reproduced below:-- '228. D.E.--When and how held.--In every case of removal, compulsory retirement from service, reduction in rank, grade or pay or withholding of increment for a period in excess of one year a formal proceedings must be recorded by the Superintendent in the prescribed form, setting forth-- (a) the charge; (b) the evidence on which the charge is based; (c) the defence of the accused; (d) the statement of his witness (if any); (e) the finding of the Superintendent, with the reasons on which it is based; (f) the Superintendent's final order or recommendation, as the case maybe.' 20. A bare reading of Regulation 228 indicates that Superintendent alone has been mentioned as the authority to frame and issue a charge sheet in respect of major penalty or penalties, which have the effect of major penalties. The term 'Superintendent' means the Superintendent of Police, which is evident from Regulation 32, which describes the SP as the head of the police force of his district. The Police Regulations do not prescribe the competence of any authority to issue a charge sheet in any other provisions except Regulation 228, which solely empowers the SP. This power of issuance of charge sheet is bestowed upon the SP in regard to all persons holding the ranks subordinate to that of the SP. By necessary implication, the provisions of Regulation 228 exclude all authorities, superior or inferior to the SP to issue a charge sheet to any police personnel holding the rank subordinate to that of SP. It can, thus, be safely held that for an Inspector of Police, which in rank is subordinate to SP, the sole Competent Authority to issue charge sheet is the SP under the Police Regulations, which exclusively govern the field as held supra. 21. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that no other authority except SP is empowered under the Police Regulations to institute disciplinary proceedings/issue charge sheet to an Inspector of Police." 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.V. Srinivasa Sastry and others Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General and others, (1993) 1 SCC 419 , Inspector General of Police and another Vs. Thavasiappan, (1996) 2 SCC 145 , and State of U.P. and Another Vs. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.V. Srinivasa Sastry and others Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General and others, (1993) 1 SCC 419 , Inspector General of Police and another Vs. Thavasiappan, (1996) 2 SCC 145 , and State of U.P. and Another Vs. Chandrapal Singh and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 670 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 556, has submitted that in terms of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India, no member of the State Civil Service or holder of the civil post can be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the Appointing Authority, but Article 311 (1) of the Constitution does not provide that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the Appointing Authority. If there is no Rule providing for initiation of the departmental proceeding by the Appointing Authority, then any Superior Controlling Authority-can initiate departmental proceeding. Hence, initiation and conducting of departmental proceeding can be by an authority other than the authority competent to impose penalty if the relevant service Rules do not prohibit the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Regulation 228 does not confer exclusive power to SP to issue the charge sheet and that a minute reading of Regulation 228 reveals that SP in the prescribed form after the departmental enquiry is required to draw formal proceeding containing the charge, the material collected during the enquiry, the findings of SP and recommended final order but the said Regulations does not confer exclusive power to SP to issue the charge sheet. Though there is some substance in the argument advanced by Counsel for petitioner but following judicial discipline, this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Aran Prakash Yadav (supra). 7. Though there is some substance in the argument advanced by Counsel for petitioner but following judicial discipline, this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Aran Prakash Yadav (supra). 7. Learned Counsel for petitioner has referred to subsequent Single Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Sanjay Pauranik v. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 318/2014 whereby order dated 4-4-2014, referring to the notification dated 12-7-13 and the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has held that Inspector General of Police being the Disciplinary Authority is competent to issue the charge sheet but the Division Bench in the matter of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), has expressed that for the purpose of deciding the competence of an authority to institute disciplinary proceedings/issuance of charge sheet against an Inspector General of Police, the M.P. Police Regulations alone would apply to the exclusion of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 8. Counsel for respondents has referred to the subsequent notification dated 12-7-2013 whereby" Regulation 223 has been substituted and following Regulation 223 has been incorporated:-- "223. Powers of the Zonal Inspector General of Police or any Police Officer equivalent to the rank of Inspector General of Police.-- The Zonal Inspector General of Police or any police officer equivalent to the rank of Inspector General of Police to exercise the following powers:-- (a) Power to suspend any officers up to the rank of Inspector pending enquiry into their conduct. (b) Power to inflict any of the punishments specified in Regulations 216 and 217 on Head Constables and Constables. (c) Power to inflict on all ranks from Constables to Inspector any of the penalties specified in Regulations 214 and 215." Under the above Regulations, the Zonal Inspector General of Police or any police authority equivalent to the rank of Inspector General of Police has been empowered to inflict any of the penalties in Regulations 214 and 215 but since there is no amendment in Regulation 228, therefore, the position about issuance of the charge sheet in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in the matter of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), will not alter even after the said amendment. Thus, I am of the opinion that the impugned charge sheet dated 20-12-13 issued by the Inspector General of Police cannot be sustained in view of the Division Bench judgment in the matter of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), and is hereby set aside with liberty to the Competent Authority to issue fresh charge sheet. C.C. as per rules.