MOTURAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute involved in these petitions relate to the same incident. Thus, all the matters are being considered together and being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners, namely Moturam, Constable, Rajkumar, Constable, Bhuvaneshwar, Head Constable, Ashok Kumar Sahu, Head Constable, Ramgovind Shukla, Constable, were posted at Police Station Manpur, District Rajnandgaon. M.S. Gill was posted as Town Inspector. A departmental enquiry was initiated against all the petitioners on the basis of allegation that they remained absent from the duties without permission on 22.09.1992 when they were directed orally to remain present in the Police Station at 17.00 Hours by the Station House Officer, which was not followed. An enquiry was held and the petitioners were removed from service vide order dated 30.09.1993. The petitioners preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 19.10.1993 which was rejected on 13.12.1993. A second appeal was also preferred by the petitioners before the Director General of Police, the same was rejected on 27.06.1994.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Original Applications before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, being registered as O.A. No. 2065/1994, 2066/1994, 2067/1994, 2068/994, 2069/1994. After having considered all the facts of the case, all the aforesaid petitions were dismissed vide order dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure D/1). However, on a review petition, filed by the petitioners, the same was allowed and the matters were directed to be re-heard vide order dated 29.06.1999 (Annexure D/2) on the limited issue asto whether non-appointment of the Presenting Officer resulted in vitiating the enquiry or not and whether the enquiry officer acted as a Judge as well as prosecutor. The Tribunal allowed the review application on the above stated issue as under: