GHASIRAM KOSARIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner filed Original Application before the Madhya Pradesh State administrative Tribunal, registered as O.A. No. 3121 of 1992. After abolition of the Tribunal, the aforesaid original application has been transferred to this Court and registered as W.P.(S) No. 645 of 2005. By this petition, the Petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order of penalty passed by the Superintendent of Police on 23-12-1991 (Annexure A-12) as also order dated 30-03-1992 (Annexure A-14) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Raipur, by which, appeal against the order of penalty has been dismissed. The Petitioner has also challenged validity of order dated 27-08-1992 (Annexure A-16) passed by the Director General of Police, Bhopal, dismissing Petitioner's mercy petition.

(2.) On account of an accused having escaped from police custody of the Petitioner, who was working as a Constable at the relevant point of time, he was placed under suspension and thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated by issuance of a charge sheet on 06-02-1991 (Annexure A-2). After submission of reply, vide order dated 26-02-1991, one Shri R. K. Katare, City Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer followed by appointment of Shri J. P. Dwivedi, City Superintendent of Police as Enquiry Officer vide memo dated 27-04-1991. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded and after completion of departmental enquiry, the enquiry report was prepared and submitted by the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure A-9. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 04-12-1991 was issued to the Petitioner and other delinquent employee namely Mohd. Raseed, Constable vide Annexure A-10. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice (Annexure A-11). After receipt of reply, Respondent No. 5-Superintendent of Police, Raipur passed the final order in the departmental enquiry whereby the Superintendent of Police, Raipur vide order dated 23-12-1991 (Annexure A-12), holding the Petitioner and Constable-Mohd. Raseed guilty of charges of misconduct imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. The Petitioner preferred an appeal followed by mercy petition which were also dismissed and thereafter this petition has been preferred.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised many-fold contentions to submit that because of serious illegalities and irregularities and violation of principles of nature justice, the departmental enquiry and the consequent order of penalty and order passed in appeal are vitiated. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the entire enquiry is rendered illegal as there has been no order of joint enquiry as mandatorily required under Rule 18 of M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1966")- It is then submitted that no presenting officer was appointed as required under Rule 14(5) (c) of the Rules of 1966 and in fact, the enquiry Officer acted like a prosecutor which is clearly indicative of his bias and he cannot be said to be fair and impartial. This, according to learned course for the Petitioner, by itself renders the enquiry illegal. The other submissions are that though the Petitioner demanded supply of preliminary enquiry report, the same was not supplied to him. Moreover, the statement of Incharge of the Police Station, Accused-Gorelal @ Amarnath was also not supplied nor statement of Armourer Krishna Rao was supplied to the Petitioner. Further submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was not informed regarding desperate nature of accused Sunil and Rawel Minz, who were hardcore criminals nor special guard was provided, therefore, if the accused persons fled away from his custody, he was not responsible. It is also submitted that the defence of the Petitioner has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary or appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is highly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct while imposing punishment of compulsory retirement and the past record of the Petitioner, which is excellent and unblemish has not been considered as required under Regulation 224 of the Police Regulations. It is also contended that imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement is harsh and is not justifiable and also violative of provisions contained in Rule 226 of the Police Regulations. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner lastly submits that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in a most mechanical manner without due and proper application of mind to the specific ground raised in the appeal against the order of penalty. It is submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Police Regulations as also in the Rules of 1966, the appellate authority was required to consider each and every ground raised in appeal and pass reasoned and speaking order which has not been done in the present case.