Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 23 (MP)

Darbari Singh Maravi v. State of M. P.

2015-01-06

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority after a departmental enquiry removing the petitioner from service and is also aggrieved by the consequential orders subsequently issued on his appeals and mercy petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working on the post of Constable in the Police Department and was posted in Police Lines, Jabalpur. One Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi was also posted in the Police Lines, who was incharge for providing police guard for medical assistance to the convicts lodged in the Central Jail. One Mahendra Pyasi, brother of Ashok Pyasi, was transferred in the Central Jail, Jabalpur for medical assistance. Ashok Pyasi made a complaint that illegal demand was made by Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi for providing guard for taking said convict to the hospital. A trap was arranged by C.S.P., Omti, Jabalpur and signed notes were given to Ashok Pyasi, who offered the same to the petitioner, who in turn transferred the cash to Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi. The raid was conducted, signed notes were found in possession of Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi, seizure was made and thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and said Head Constable for conducting a joint enquiry. The allegation against the petitioner was receiving Rs.6,000/- for the purposes of providing guard to Ashok Pyasi, which fact was denied by the petitioner by filing his reply. After a departmental enquiry, report was given by the Enquiry Officer holding that charge levelled against the petitioner was partially proved with respect to receipt of the money but dishonest intention or connivance of the petitioner was not proved. After accepting the enquiry report, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Such an order was assailed in appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Yet another appeal was preferred before the Inspector General of Police, which too was dismissed. A mercy petition was also filed by the petitioner but that was also dismissed by the Director General of Police, hence this writ petition is required to be filed. 3. Yet another appeal was preferred before the Inspector General of Police, which too was dismissed. A mercy petition was also filed by the petitioner but that was also dismissed by the Director General of Police, hence this writ petition is required to be filed. 3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that appreciating the overall evidence available on record, the Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the petitioner was guilty of receiving the money but his dishonest intention as alleged was not proved and, therefore, the charge was partially proved. If that report was considered and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority as a whole without recording his own finding, the Disciplinary Authority was not required to impose such major punishment on the petitioner. It is, thus, contended that the evidence available on record is not properly appreciated either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority and order of punishment is issued against the petitioner, which order is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, by filing a return the respondents have contended that detailed enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry the evidence was adduced to the extent that the petitioner has received money from the complainant and has given it to the other accused person. The acceptance of the money by the petitioner itself is enough to show that he was also playing hand in gloves with the Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi and was well aware of the fact that money was demanded only for providing a guard to the convict for medical assistance. That being so, it is contended that the finding is rightly recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and for such major misconduct, right punishment is imposed on the petitioner. These aspects have been considered by the Appellate Authority and appeals of the petitioner including the mercy petition have rightly been dismissed. Thus, it is contended that the order under challenge is not liable to be interfered with. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Undisputedly the charge against the petitioner was to the extent that he has received the money knowing fully well the fact that the same was demanded for providing guard for medical assistance to the accused person. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Undisputedly the charge against the petitioner was to the extent that he has received the money knowing fully well the fact that the same was demanded for providing guard for medical assistance to the accused person. To prove such a fact it was not only required to prove that money was received by the petitioner from the complainant but it was also required to be proved that he was fully knowing that the money was demanded by the Head Constable aforesaid for the purpose of providing guard as illegal gratification. To that extent the evidence is missing as nothing is found in the entire enquiry report placed on record as Annexure P-5, though evidence has been discussed in the said enquiry report. Probably that was the reason the Enquiry Officer has recorded the guilt of the petitioner in the following manner : 7. If that was the finding of the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, without re-appreciating the evidence, the Disciplinary Authority was not correct in holding that serious misconduct of the petitioner was proved. To that extent the order of the Disciplinary Authority was required to be re-assessed by the Appellate Authority as the Deputy Inspector General of Police while considering the appeal of the petitioner has, though reconsidered the entire evidence, but again recorded the finding without the availability of the evidence with respect to the guilt of the petitioner for such a misconduct where he was treated to be an ally of the main person who was charged with the allegation of demanding bribe. It was more so important because the petitioner was not competent to provide any guard for the medical treatment of the convicts. That authority was available only with the Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi. If that was the situation, it was more so important to record the evidence whether the petitioner was also aware of such a demand made by said Ram Bahadur Tripathi from the complainant and unless that evidence is recorded or examined, it was not to be held that the petitioner was also guilty for such a major misconduct. However, nothing is available on record to indicate whether such type of evidence was available on record of the departmental enquiry or not. However, nothing is available on record to indicate whether such type of evidence was available on record of the departmental enquiry or not. That fact is required to be re-appreciated by the first Appellate Authority, i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police. 8. Yet another aspect is that paragraphs 226 of the M.P. Police Regulations prescribe that dismissal (including removal) is the last resort and should ordinarily not be inflicted until all other means of corrections have failed. In the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority the facts relating to past service conduct of the petitioner are not mentioned. That being so, if the petitioner was not charge-sheeted on earlier occasion, such a major punishment of removal from service should not have ordinarily been imposed on him. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 28.07.2007 cannot be countenance by this Court. The same stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Range, for re-appreciation of the entire material available on record of the departmental enquiry with respect to the allegation made against the petitioner. In case it is found that except what is already discussed herein above or in the order previously passed no more evidence is available against the petitioner, that authority would be free to pass appropriate order of inflicting punishment on the petitioner for the misconduct proved. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and decision be communicated to the petitioner accordingly. 10. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.