Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 826 (MP)

Manoj Verma v. State of M. P.

2014-07-15

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT Rathi, J, -- 1. This appeal has been preferred under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 having being aggrieved by an order dated 17.6.2014 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.2902/2014 (Manoj Verma v. State of M.P. and others). 2. The facts leading to filing the appeal may be summarized as under : Appellant Manoj Verma who claims himself to be Reserve Inspector having acquired the status of a Gazetted Officer was charge-sheeted under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur alleging misconduct committed in discharge of his official duty, while posted at Jabalpur, as per Annexure P-1, dated 5.5.2014 which was served upon him through the respondent No.3 S.P., Gwalior. Questioning competency of the authority in issuing charge-sheet on the strength of the grounds which would again be taken up for consideration in the subsequent paras of the order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2902/14 before the writ Court which was decided vide order dated 17.6.2014. In the said petition, the petitioner Manoj Verma more or less had taken two or three grounds for quashment of the charge-sheet. It was contended that the concerning S.P. has no power to issue the charge-sheet. By placing reliance on one of the order passed by the Single Bench of the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.21639/12, it was contended by the petitioner that in this particular case also the authority issuing charge-sheet lacked jurisdiction and consequently the charge-sheet was set aside only on that ground. Another argument was to the effect that since the petitioner was discharging his duty as a Reserve Inspector, his cadre was different than the cadre of Inspector and therefore in that event the concerning S.P. was not empowered to issue charge-sheet against him as in his case there was no application of the provisions mentioned in the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. 3. 3. The learned writ Court while examining all the factors of the case in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav v. State of M.P. and others 2013(3) MPLJ 508 came to hold as under : “Having considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (Supra), has categorically held that under Regulation 228 of the Regulations, the Superintendent of Police only is competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings/issue of charge-sheet for major penalties, against an Inspector of Police. As such, no illegality is found in the matter of issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police. As regards submission of petitioner that Reserve Inspector forms a separate cadre other than the cadre of Inspector of Police, nothing has been pointed out by the counsel for petitioner to substantiate such claim. Even there is no provision in the Regulations which provides different cadres for Inspector of Police and the Reserve Inspector. As such, Inspector of Police and Reserve Inspector, both fall in the same cadre only. However, it may be possible that the Reserve Inspector may have different functions to perform at different levels but this itself does not make such officer/employee a class other than that of class of Inspector of Police. The Division Bench has held that despite induction of Police Inspector into the gazetted position, he would still be in the cadre of Inspector of Police and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police under Regulation 228 of the Regulations is fully competent to issue charge- sheet. As such, all the submissions raised by the petitioner are not sustainable in the eye of law.” 4. Aggrieved by the findings of the writ Court, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned writ Court has not considered the following few grounds viz. As such, all the submissions raised by the petitioner are not sustainable in the eye of law.” 4. Aggrieved by the findings of the writ Court, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned writ Court has not considered the following few grounds viz. : (i) That the appellant Manoj Verma is a gazetted police officer serving in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 and in this regard the order of State Government was passed on 18.12.2008, therefore, his case is fully covered in the light of provisions given in M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1966 for the brevity ‘CCA Rules, 1966'; (ii) That, the appellant being a gazetted police officer, his case should have been considered in accordance with the provisions given in M.P. Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Appeal Rules, 2000; (iii) That, the order of initiating departmental enquiry was set aside as per the order contained in Annexure P-10, dated 20.12.2013 passed by Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Additional Inspector General of Police (Admn.), PHQ, Bhopal. (iv) The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it has nowhere been considered in the order by the writ Court that only the Inspector General of Police is a competent authority to issue charge-sheet against the appellant, as laid down by the Single Bench of the Principle Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.21639/12 vide order dated 3.5.2013. (v) It is further urged by placing reliance on the document (Annexure P-7) dated 15.6.2012 that in department enquriy as per the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Jabalpur Range, Jabalpur, other police officials were already punished meaning thereby, the appellant has already been exonerated and on this ground also, chargesheet could not have been issued by the S.P. concerned against the appellant. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order impugned. 7. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that each and every aspect of the matter has been exhaustively considered by the writ Court and thereafter a reasoned order has been passed, which calls for no interference. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed for want of merits. 8. 7. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that each and every aspect of the matter has been exhaustively considered by the writ Court and thereafter a reasoned order has been passed, which calls for no interference. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed for want of merits. 8. Having regard to the submissions of the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the impugned order and also examined the entire facts in the light of legal provisions applicable to the case in hand. 9. In our view the grounds raised by the appellant in this case have received a complete answer from the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra). As regards claim of the appellant that he being a gazetted police officer, his case is governed by the provisions of M.P. Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Appeal Rules, 2000, same argument could not be acceptable for the simple reason that Gazetted Rules categorically prescribed three kinds of persons forming the gazetted cadre under rule 4 which does not contemplate a forth kind (i.e. Inspector) who claims his existence in the Gazetted service merely by implication based upon declaration of Inspector as gazetted. Likewise, the CCA Rules 1966 have no application in view of the specific provisions contained in rule 3(1)(d), which reads as under : 3. Application. -- (1) These rules shall apply to every Government servant but shall not apply to -- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) any person for whom special provision is made, in respect of matters covered by these rules, by or under any law for the time being in force or by or under any agreement entered into by or with the previous approval of the Governor before or after the commencement of these rules, in regard to matters covered by such special provisions. 10. Because of the fact that there is special provision of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation constituted under section 2 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 in regard to police inspectors, the appellant’s claim could not be considered under the provisions of CCA Rules. The argument raised in this respect by the counsel is therefore rejected. 11. 10. Because of the fact that there is special provision of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation constituted under section 2 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 in regard to police inspectors, the appellant’s claim could not be considered under the provisions of CCA Rules. The argument raised in this respect by the counsel is therefore rejected. 11. As regards the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that by virtue of order Annexure P-10 dated 20.12.2013, the order of initiating departmental enquiry was set aside, it may be mentioned here that this order is passed in regard to expunging the adverse remark in the ACR of the delinquent employee. It is thus obvious that same does not indicate that the order of initiating departmental enquiry was set aside. 12. Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of order dated 15.6.2012 as per Annexure P-7, the appellant had already been exonerated of the charges because this oder was passed only against some of the police officials. This contention has also lost its value because in para 4 of the order it was specifically mentioned that proceedings for departmental enquiry have been initiated separately against the appellant along with other police Head Constables. 13. Having thus perused the order of the writ Court it is amply clear that the grounds which are embarked upon before this Court were taken into consideration by the writ Court at earlier point of time and nothing was left to be considered. At the time of consideration of the case of the appellant, the provisions contemplated under the Regulations 213 and 228 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations have broadly been considered by the learned writ Court and it was only thereafter concluded that case of the appellant is governed under the M.P. Police Regulations under which the Superintendent of Police alone is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings/issue charge-sheet for major penalties, against an Inspector of Police. Thus, after taking into consideration the entire matter along with relevant rules, this Court is also with the agreement that the case of appellant is fully covered by the decision rendered in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), and is of the considered view that the findings given by the learned writ Court are perfectly legal and not suffered from any infirmity or perversity. In other words, the order passed by the writ Court is well merited calling for no interference by this Court. 14. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. ..............