Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 67 (MP)

Keshav Prasad Upadhyay v. State of M. P.

2015-01-16

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
ORDER 1. This writ petition is directed seeking quashment of charge sheet dated 18.9.2012 said to be issued by the Superintendent of Police against the petitioner leveling the charge of service misconduct, on the ground that on the complaint made by one Raghvendra Singh Rajput, criminal prosecution of the petitioner was launched by the Lokayukt after an investigation in the Court of law in Special Trial No.3/2013. Since the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution on the same set of charges, the departmental enquiry was liable to be stayed. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, considering the order passed in W.P. No.13553/2012 on 31.8.12 and in W.P. No.2061/2010 (s) on 19.2.2010 granted an interim stay on 4.10.2012. 2. Upon service of notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed return as also an application for vacation of the interim order. However, though the application was presented in the year 2012, the same could not be considered as yet. After full dressed trial, the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner has come to an end by his clear acquittal. Those documents are placed on record with an application for taking additional documents on record by the petitioner and it is prayed that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner may be quashed. In this background, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner was Head Constable in the Police Station. A complaint was made by one Hannulal Athya relating to mischief committed by one Raghvendra Singh Rajput. On receipt of the complaint, instead of registering the case, investigating the same in appropriate manner, the petitioner went on the spot, met with the person against whom complaint was made, asked him to come to the Police Station and has not even recorded his statement nor conducted any investigation of the complaint. This being so, the charge was leveled against the petitioner with respect to the violation of the provisions of Paragraph 64 (2) of the M.P. Police Regulation and the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. This being so, the charge was leveled against the petitioner with respect to the violation of the provisions of Paragraph 64 (2) of the M.P. Police Regulation and the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. It appears that the said Raghvendra Singh Rajput has lodged the complaint against the petitioner regarding demand of bribe in the Lokayukt and on conducting investigation on such complaint the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in the Special Court for offences committed under section 7 read with section 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 201 of IPC. The said trial was conducted and after recording of evidence, it was found that though allegations were made that the bribe was offered by the Raghvendra Singh Rajput to the petitioner yet fact relating to conduct such trap seizing the currency notes from the petitioner was not proved and as such in absence of such proof, the petitioner was acquitted. 4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that because of such finding now no enquiry can be conducted against the petitioner in respect of the charge sheet issued to him, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the charge of asking for bribe is not leveled in the said charge sheet. The service misconduct of the petitioner alleged in the charge sheet is with respect to not conducting the investigation/enquiry on the complaint made by Hannulal Athya. If that is so, even challenge to the said charge sheet in this writ petition was wholly misconceived rather it was an attempt to delay the process of the departmental enquiry by the petitioner. For the said reason, challenge to the charge sheet cannot be accepted. 5. As a consequence, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondents would be at liberty to complete the departmental enquiry against the petitioner expeditiously and will assess whether the misconduct of the petitioner is such for which a penalty of removal could be imposed on him in normal course. This is required to be done because now the petitioner is superannuated and if any penalty is to be imposed that would be nothing but withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof granted to the petitioner after his superannuation. 6. This is required to be done because now the petitioner is superannuated and if any penalty is to be imposed that would be nothing but withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof granted to the petitioner after his superannuation. 6. Let the aforesaid enquiry be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to say the petitioner to cooperate in the enquiry in all fair manner, failing which the respondent-department would be free to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. 7. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Mahendra Pateria for petitioner; Anubhav Jain, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.