ORDER/JUDGMENT – The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12-6-2015 passed by Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh and appellate order dated 11-8-2015 passed by Inspector General of Police, SAF, Bhopal whereby the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under : (i) That vide order dated 2-5-1986 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable, GRP, Bhopal. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. In the year 2014, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Kurawar, District Rajgarh. Upon secret information on 27-1-2015, the Town Inspector (T.I.) of the Police Station made a raid on the spot where gambling was going on and arrested Baldev Prajapati. When he was being taken to the police station, he told that he had a talk with the present petitioner in Rs. 2000.00 and under his protection, he was indulging in gambling activity. Although the case of gambling was registered against Baldev Prajapati and others, the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh, who issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner dated 12-6-2015. In the charge-sheet, the following two charges were levelled against the petitioner : (ii) The petitioner denied the charges by submitting a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet denying the allegations. The Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh being dissatisfied with his reply, decided to initiate the departmental enquiry and vide order dated 3-3-2015 he appointed the SDOP, Sarangpur as Enquiry Officer and SHO, Sarangpur as a Presenting Officer. (iii) The Enquiry Officer initiated the enquiry against the petitioner. In support of the charges, the Presenting Officer examined Constable Amit Raghuwanshi as P.W.1 who stated that from the month of November 2014, he was posted in Kurawar Police Station. On 27-1-2015, he along with Banesingh, Laxminarayan and the SHO were patrolling and received the information that Baldev Kumhar of Village Lasudia Ramnath is indulged in gambling activities near “Peer Dargah” at Bus Stand. They reached there and recovered Rs. 780/- slips, papers and pen. He was arrested on the spot and was interrogated, in which he took the name of one Lakkhu Nai who used to pay him the gambling commission. While taking him to the Police Station, he said that he had a talk with Khan Sahab (Thanedar Sahab) in Rs. They reached there and recovered Rs. 780/- slips, papers and pen. He was arrested on the spot and was interrogated, in which he took the name of one Lakkhu Nai who used to pay him the gambling commission. While taking him to the Police Station, he said that he had a talk with Khan Sahab (Thanedar Sahab) in Rs. 2,000/- for his protection. Thereafter, the case was registered against him under the Gambling Act. The same statement was given by Constable Rajesh S/o. Ramlal Yadav (P.W.2), Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Gaud (P.W.3), and Dayasagar Singh, SHO (P.W.4). Rajeev Chaturvedi, SDOP was also examined as P.W.5, who conducted the preliminary enquiry and found charges proved against the petitioner. Banesingh, Head Constable was examined as P.W.6 who has also supported the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner/delinquent. He has also recorded his statement and was cross-examined by PO. After appreciating the evidence that came on record, the Enquiry Officer - Santosh Kumar Dixit vide enquiry report dated 18-5-2015 did not find both the charges proved against the petitioner. He submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police. (iv) The Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh being dissatisfied with the enquiry report issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the reply to the show cause notice. Vide order dated 12-6-2015 the Superintendent of Police Rajgarh has imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect with non-regularization of the period of suspension from 27-1-2015 to 23-2-2015. (v) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. But vide order dated 11-8-2015, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal, hence the present petition before this Court. 3. Shri Prasanna P. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the Enquiry Officer has given clean chit to the petitioner, then the petitioner ought to have been discharged from the charges by dropping the Departmental Enquiry. But vide order dated 11-8-2015, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal, hence the present petition before this Court. 3. Shri Prasanna P. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the Enquiry Officer has given clean chit to the petitioner, then the petitioner ought to have been discharged from the charges by dropping the Departmental Enquiry. Under Rule 15(2) of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules” for short), the disciplinary authority has the power to disagree with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, but it is incumbent upon him to record reasons for such disagreement and thereafter to record his own finding on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for that purpose. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, the disciplinary authority has neither recorded its reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report nor recorded its own finding on such charges. He has simply formed his opinion that the reply given by the petitioner is not satisfactory, and punished by of stoppage of one increment with the cumulative effect is liable to be imposed. The appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal in mechanical manner without applying its mind. Hence, said order is also not liable to be sustained. In support of his contention, Shri Bhatnagar has placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 ; and M. V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 . 4. The respondents/State have filed the reply by submitting that although the Enquiry Officer has recorded the finding in favour of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority is having the power to disagree with the report and pass the order of punishment under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules. The interference by the High Court in disciplinary matters is very limited. All the police witnesses in whose presence the accused - Baldev Prajapati in a gambling case has said that he had a talk with the present petitioner in Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, he may not be taken to the Police Station. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner. The interference by the High Court in disciplinary matters is very limited. All the police witnesses in whose presence the accused - Baldev Prajapati in a gambling case has said that he had a talk with the present petitioner in Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, he may not be taken to the Police Station. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner. There was no proper marshalling of the evidence by the Enquiry Officer hence the disciplinary authority has rightly examined the matter afresh and recorded its own finding and punished the petitioner. No interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Shri Valmik Sakargayen, a learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State, argued in support of the impugned orders by submitting that the evidence given before the Enquiry Officer remained unrebutted, therefore, there was no reason before the disciplinary authority to disbelieve the same. The petitioner has failed to control the gambling activities in his area. Therefore, the second charge has also been found proved against him and appropriate punishment has been imposed upon him. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per Charge No. 1, the petitioner has failed to control the gambling activities in his area by involving himself in it and as per Charge No. 2, he has violated Clause 64(2) of M. P. Police Regulations and General Conditions of Police Services which is misconduct. 7. In order to prove the aforesaid charges, the prosecution witness (P.W.1 to P.W.6) have categorically stated before the Enquiry Officer that Baldev Prajapati was found indulging in gambling activities and he confessed before the police that he was doing the said activities on the commission given by Laxmichand @ Lakkhu Nai and he had a talk with the “Thanedar Sahab”/Khan Sahab in Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, he may not be taken to the Police Station. In Certified Copy Key App. No. Delivery Date Amount defence, the petitioner examined Laxmichand @ Lakkhu Nai a Barber in the locality, who stated that against him not a single case has been registered and he was not involved in any gambling activity. Although he knows Baldev Prajapati against whom various cases are registered but he wrongly took his name. He did not talk with the present petitioner. Although he knows Baldev Prajapati against whom various cases are registered but he wrongly took his name. He did not talk with the present petitioner. The petitioner has also examined Constable Laxminaryan as D.W.2 who has stated that in his presence Baldev did not take the name of the present petitioner. Likewise, Devilal - the driver of the Police Department (D.W.3) has also denied the involvement of the present petitioner. The petitioner also examined Baldev Prajapati as D.W.4 who has admitted his arrest by the police on 27-1-2015 but said that out of fear he took the name of Lakkhu Nai and did not take the name of the petitioner and he did not talk with him, neither he paid any amount to him. Those allegations against the petitioner are by the police witnesses are hearsay evidence based on the confession of Baldev Prajapati against the petitioner but in Departmental Enquiry he has totally denied it. Before the Enquiry Officer, neither Baldev Prajapati nor Lakkhu Nai has deposed against the petitioner. Banesingh - prosecution witness in his cross-examined has admitted that he did not tell the SHO, Kurawar in respect of association of the petitioner with Baldev Prajapati. 8. The petitioner took a defence that the SHO Dayasagar Singh was not happy with his working, therefore, in order to demoralise him, a false case has been registered against him. During his posting in the Police Station, he has registered three cases of gambling. Therefore, it is also incorrect that he has failed to prevent gambling activities in his area. The Enquiry Officer has properly appreciated the evidence and has held that the charges are not found proved against the petitioner. 9. Rule 15 of the CCA Rules provide the action to be taken on the enquiry report. As per sub-rule (1), if the disciplinary authority itself is not an inquiring authority, may for the reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry. As per sub-rule (2), if the disciplinary authority, if disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its own reasons for such disagreement ad record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. As per sub-rule (2), if the disciplinary authority, if disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its own reasons for such disagreement ad record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Since the disciplinary authority was of the opinion that the remand is not necessary under sub-rule (1), then sub-rule (2) comes into operation. The disciplinary authority may disagree with the findings given by the inquiring authority on any article of charges, but it is incumbent upon it to record its reasons for such disagreement, meaning thereby he has to re-appreciate the evidence and record its disagreement with reasons and then it has to give its own finding on such charges because according to him, the evidence is sufficient for the purpose. But, the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh has simply stated that he has gone through the inquiry record and thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner to submit the defence, the petitioner submitted the reply to the show cause notice on 11-6-2015, he has gone through the inquiry report and considered the reply of the petitioner sympathetically, but in the reply, he has not given any factual material, therefore, in view of the charges, he is liable to be punished by the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Para 3 of the order of Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh is reproduced below : 10. That, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid impugned order is not in conformity with sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules. The disciplinary authority has neither recorded its reasons for disagreement nor given its own findings for such disagreement. The disciplinary authority has simply said that the delinquent has not given any factual materials in his reply. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 11. So far as order appellate authority is concerned, the appellate authority has simply upheld the order of the disciplinary authority on the basis of statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The evidence of defence witnesses has not been considered. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is also not liable to be sustained. Merely based on the statement of an accused that too not admitted in his deposition before the Enquiry Officer, any police officer cannot be punished unless there is concrete evidence against him. The evidence of defence witnesses has not been considered. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is also not liable to be sustained. Merely based on the statement of an accused that too not admitted in his deposition before the Enquiry Officer, any police officer cannot be punished unless there is concrete evidence against him. The entire charge-sheet is based on the oral statement of an accused who was arrested in a gambling case. There is no memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act on record in which he has alleged the involvement of the present petitioner. Two prosecution witnesses though not have turned hostile, but in their cross-examination, they have admitted that before them, no such statement was given. Therefore, the Presenting Officer has failed to establish the charges against the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer. It is also seen that there is nothing adverse in the service record of the petitioner because he was appointed in 1986 as Constable and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2014 meaning thereby that from 1986 till 2014 his service record was unblemished. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12-6-2015 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 11-8-2015 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed with all consequential benefits.