K.M.MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Assam and another v. J.N. Roy Biswas, (1976) 1 SCC 234 has held that in the absence of a rule authorising the Government, reopening of the proceedings is ultra vires and bad, and observed as under: -

(2.) The above statement of law aptly applies to the factual matrix of the present case, where second departmental enquiry has been launched without express provision in the Chhattisgarh Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

(3.) Petitioner K.M. Mishra, at the relevant point of time, was working as Sub-Inspector, Police Station Berla, Distt. Durg and petitioner Subhash Borkar was working as Constable in the same police station. A complaint was made against both the petitioners stating that they have accepted illegal gratification from the complainants to the extent of Rs.3,800.00 pursuant to which common departmental proceeding was instituted against both the petitioners and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Berla in the capacity of enquiry officer on 14/11/2006 submitted enquiry report against both the petitioners to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, who accepted the report of the said enquiry and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, being the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of censure on both the petitioners by its order. The Inspector General of Police, Durg, though is the appellate authority, being not satisfied with the punishment of censure inflicted upon the petitioners by the disciplinary authority, by exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 270(1) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and directed for fresh disciplinary proceeding against both the petitioners and Mr. N.S. Bais, SubDivisional Officer (Police), Bemetara, was appointed as enquiry officer and the said enquiry officer submitted its report on 31/1/2009 to the Senior Superintendent of Police vide Annexure P-8 and clearly recorded a finding in its report that two charges are not established against both the petitioners.