Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 119 (MP)

S. D. Muley v. State of M. P.

2017-01-23

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the charge sheet dated 25.8.2015 issued by Superintendent of Police, Ratlam. 2. At the time of issuance of charge sheet, petitioner was working as Inspector after promotion on 16.10.2007. That from the relevant period i.e. 13.11.2010 to 9.11.2012 petitioner was posted as Inspector in the Police Station, Station Road, Ratlam. One Assistant Sub-Inspector Uday Singh Jadaun was also posted in the same police station as Head Constable from 8.8.2011 to 7.9.2012. On 7.11.2009 a criminal case (Crime No.491/09) under sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477A IPC was registered. The case was investigated by various officers. On 7.5.2011 case-diary was received by the petitioner and from July, 2011 the case diary has gone missing and thereafter from 1.11.2012 petitioner was transferred to Bajna Police Station. Later on the said casediary was found in the Treasury on 5.12.2014. Since there was no investigation in the said case from 28.5.2011 to 5.12.2014 the charge sheet dated 25.8.2015 was issued to the petitioner as well as to Uday Singh Jadaun framing two charges each against both of them. The charge sheet against the petitioner is reproduced below:- vkjksi fujh{kd ,lŒMhŒ ewys] Fkkuk izHkkjh LVs'ku jksM] jryke ds in ij inLFk jgrs vijk/k dz- 491@2009 /kkjk 409] 467] 468] 471] 474] 477, HkkŒnaŒfoŒ dh Mk;jh dks xk;c dj eky[kkus esa j[k nsuk] lkFk gh v/khuLFk izŒvkjŒ mn;flag tknkSu dks isaMsalh ls mDr vijk/k dks vyx djus dk voS/kkfud vkns'k nsukA bl izdkj viuh mre ;ksX;rkvksa dk ifjp; u nsdj iqfyl jsX;wys'ku ds iSjk 64¼02½ dk mYya?ku djukA 3. Petitioner approached this Court challenging the charge sheet dated 25.8.2015 on the ground that Superintendent of Police is not competent to issue the charge sheet and under Regulation 223 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations only Zonal Inspector General of Police or Inspector General of Police is competent to issue charge sheet to impose major punishment. He has also assailed the charge sheet on the ground that Superintendent of Police, Ratlam conducted a preliminary enquiry in which A.S.I Uday Singh Jadaun was found guilty and despite the aforesaid report dated 11.3.2015 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police. Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice and being dissatisfied with the reply the impugned charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner. 4. Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice and being dissatisfied with the reply the impugned charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner. 4. After notice reply has been filed by the State Government in which it is submitted that under Regulation 228 of Police Regulations the Superintendent of Police alone is competent to initiate departmental enquiry and this issued has been finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav v. State of M.P and others, reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 508 . petitioner filed a rejoinder and submitted that the SLP filed against the judgment rendered in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav has been dismissed. 5. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that after the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), Police Regulation 223 has been amended by way of notification dated 12.7.2013 and under this new provision competent authority for initiation of any proceeding for major penalty is the Inspector General of Police and not the Superintendent of Police. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Virendra Singh Gurjar, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine MP 5850. On merit he submitted that charge sheet has wrongly been issued to the petitioner because in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam only Uday Singh Jadaun was found negligent in respect of the missing case diary of Crime No.491/09. 6. Shri Dave, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents argued in support of the charge sheet and submitted that there is ample material against the petitioner to issue the charge sheet and the scope of writ petition in respect of interference in the matter of departmental enquiry at the stage of charge sheet is very limited. Petitioner is having opportunity to prove his innocence before the enquiry officer. 7. The scope of Regulation 228 has been considered in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), in which it has been categorically held that as per Regulation 228 of Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police alone is competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding and issue charge sheet for major penalties against Inspector of Police. In the case of State of M.P. v. Mahesh Kumar Bhargava [Writ Appeal No.704/2014], the State Government made a prayer for reconsideration of the judgment passed in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav. Vide order dated 14.9.2016 the Division Bench of this Court has again reconsidered the scope of Regulation 228 as well as 229 of the Police Regulations and held that the law laid down in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav does not require reconsideration. Paras 14 and 15 of the said order is reproduced herein below: 14. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned about the applicability of Regulation 229, the Regulation 229 deals with the final orders after completition of the departmental enquiry. Under Regulation 229 if the Superintendent of Police is empowered to pass the final order in case of paper will be filed in his office, a copy of the order be sent to the DIG with the monthly punishment return, therefore, the power to exercise the authority at the time of final order may be exercised by DIG but that stage would come at the time of passing of final order. But in the present case, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet on an issue under Regulation 228 by Superintendent of Police. Stage of issuance of charge sheet is provided under Regulation 228 of the Rules of 1964, where the Superintendent alone has been granted authority to issue the charge sheet and conduct the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, under Sub-Regulation (f) of Regulation 228, he is also competent to pass the final order or give a recommendation, as the case may be, therefore, in view of the above, since the present case is at the stage of issuance of charge sheet, therefore, provision of Regulation 228 will alone apply. 15. In view of the law laid down in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), the present case is examined independently within the scope of Regulation 228. The writ Court has not committed any error while quashing the charge sheet, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge and do not find any ground to reconsider the judgment passed in case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra). 8. Under Regulation 228, the Superintendent of Police alone is competent to issue charge sheet and initiate departmental enquiry. 8. Under Regulation 228, the Superintendent of Police alone is competent to issue charge sheet and initiate departmental enquiry. Regulation 229 deals with the final order after completion of the departmental enquiry and the file is required to be sent to the DIG in respect of imposition of punishment. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), as well as Mahesh Kumar Bhargava (supra), no interference is called for in respect of the impugned charge sheet issued by the Superintendent of Police in the present case. 10. So far the regulation regarding newly inserted provision of 223 is concerned which is reproduced below : 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. 11. Regulation 223 also gives power to the Zonal Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police to suspend any officer up to the rank of Inspector during the pendency of the enquiry and to impose any punishment specified in Regulations 216 and 217 on Head Constable and further to impose penalties specified in Regulations 214 and 215 to all officers from the rank of Constable to Inspector. Regulation 223 only deals with the power of suspension and imposition of punishment. The power given to the Superintendent of Police under Regulation 228 has not been taken away by which the Superintendent of Police alone can initiate enquiry by issuing charge sheet. The power under Regulation 223 is similar to the power given under Regulation 229 to the Inspector General in addition a power to suspend. 12. The power given to the Superintendent of Police under Regulation 228 has not been taken away by which the Superintendent of Police alone can initiate enquiry by issuing charge sheet. The power under Regulation 223 is similar to the power given under Regulation 229 to the Inspector General in addition a power to suspend. 12. So far the judgment in the case of Virendra Singh Gurjar (supra), passed by the Division Bench in which the issue was pertaining to the year 1995, therefore, the writ appeal was dismissed on the ground that at the relevant point of time respondent was ASI and the charge sheet was issued by the DIG but in the present case charge sheet is issued in the year 2015. 13. Shri Sethi, learned senior counsel further contended that since the charge sheet has been issued and the regular departmental enquiry is going to be held, therefore, the petitioner would be punished by major punishment. The contention of Shri Sethi cannot be accepted for the simple reason that after departmental enquiry the petitioner can be exonerated from all charges or minor penalty can be imposed based on the evidence on record and the past conduct of the petitioner. It is not mandatory that in every departmental enquiry major punishment would be imposed; petitioner can be exonerated or minor penalty can be imposed. Petitioner is free to present his case before the enquiry officer. The petition is dismissed on the ground of competency of SP to issue charge sheet without commenting on the merit of the charges and the defence of the petitioner. No order as to cost.