Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 706 (MP)

Ajveer Singh v. State of M. P.

2017-05-24

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : Anand Pathak, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner who was the Constable in the Special Armed Force at the relevant point of time, challenging the order dated 22.03.2004 (Annexure P/1) passed by Commandant 13th Battalion (Special Armed Force) Gwalior whereby, the petitioner has been given penalty of removal from service. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2004 (Annexure P/2) passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police (SAF), Gwalior whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P/3) passed by Additional Director General of Police (SAF) Police Headquarters, Bhopal whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure P/4) preferred by the petitioner as mercy petition which has been rejected by the Police Headquarter, Bhopal. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a charge sheet has been issued against him for the misconduct relating to incident dated 14.06.2000, as contained in the order dated 22.03.2004 (Annexure P/1). The grievance of the petitioner is that despite leading evidence in support of his submission as well as the evidence of complainant-Basant Kumar figured in the preliminary inquiry, the appellate authority as well as revisional authority have not considered those aspects and caused illegality and arbitrariness. According to him, orders impugned suffer from non-appreciation of evidence adduced by the petitioner in support of his submission. The appeal (Annexure P/6) preferred by the petitioner to DIG (SAF) Chambal Range, Gwalior pleading his innocence and being the last authority to appreciate the case on facts as well as on law, therefore, it was incumbent upon the DIG as appellate authority to consider factual aspects of the controversy in detail and, therefore, should have passed the order in accordance with law. By not assigning the reasons and by deciding the appeal in a slipshod manner, the appellate authority has erred in passing the impugned order dated 30.07.2004 (Annexure P/2). 3. By not assigning the reasons and by deciding the appeal in a slipshod manner, the appellate authority has erred in passing the impugned order dated 30.07.2004 (Annexure P/2). 3. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 18.07.2013 passed in W.P. No.309/2005 (Radhey Shyam Goyal v. MP State Electricity Board and ors.) wherein, this Court after considering the necessary contours of the controversy and mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Chander v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 103 as well as Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 242 , has decided the petition and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to pass appropriate order containing reasons in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the orders impugned have been passed after due consideration. He supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties at length. 6. The contention of the petitioner is primarily revolves around decision made by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide Annexure P/6. From perusal of the appeal memo as well as appellate order dated 30.07.2004, the submission of the petitioner gains ground in respect of non-consideration of the appeal by appellate authority while passing the impugned order. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court time and again have reiterated that appellate authority, being the last authority for appreciation of facts in the legal framework, must consider the case on facts as well as on law by considering the submissions of the delinquent employee. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 732 has constantly reiterated that reasons are the heartbeats of the conclusions. 8. The appellate order as well as revisional order do not contain reasons for reaching to the conclusion. Resultantly, the appellate order dated 30.07.2004 (Annexure P/2), revisional order dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set aside. 8. The appellate order as well as revisional order do not contain reasons for reaching to the conclusion. Resultantly, the appellate order dated 30.07.2004 (Annexure P/2), revisional order dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority i.e. DIG (SAF) Chambal Range, Gwalior to consider the appeal on the ground raised into it and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by passing a self-contained reasoned order. The petitioner is directed to appear before the office of the appellate authority on 20.06.2017. Thereafter, the appellate authority shall give dates for consideration/personal hearing, if requires and thereafter passed an order as referred above. 9. Before parting, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and appeal would be decided by appellate authority on its own merits.