RAVI PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant petitions, the petitioners challenged the impugned orders dtd. 6/1/2015 (Annexure P/1), 1/8/2015 and 7/8/2015 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No.1149 of 2016), 14/9/2015 and 24/9/2015 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No. 2272 of 2016), 23/9/2015 and 22/2/2016 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated from the post of Police Constable in the Police Department and appeal and mercy petition filed by the petitioners were also rejected without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as constables in the Police Department on 2/9/2013 and immediately after appointment, they were sent to PTS Borgaon for police training on 26/4/2014 and since then, they were regularly taking training and working in the Police department and thereafter, on 29/4/2014 in vehicle 407 having No. CG-03-0779, 15 newly appointed constable had gone to Kondagaon to purchase the firewood and when they were coming back from there, the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently being under the influence of liquor and consequently, the vehicle met with an accident and 04 newly appointed constables died on the spot and several others were injured. Thereafter, other newly appointed police constables got enraged and locked the main gate of PTS Borgaon and blocked the main road of national highway No.30 which caused long traffic and due to which, the general public suffered.

(3.) Thereafter, the matter was inquired and petitioners were supplied charge-sheet on 10/7/2014 alleging that the petitioners were also involved in the riot and committed misconduct according to the Civil Service Rule and Police Regulation Act. Pursuant to which, petitioners submitted their reply. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was conducted by Sub Commandant 14th Vahini, CAF Camp Bhilai and thereafter, the petitioners were removed from the services alleging that the petitioners contravened the Rule 6 (1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Act, 1965 and para 64 of General Service Condition Sl. No. 2, 4, 5 and 11 of the M.P. Police Regulation Act. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioners preferred appeals before the respondent No.3 which were rejected vide Annexure P/2. Thereafter, the petitioners again preferred appeals before the Director General of Police/respondent No.2, which were also rejected vide Annexure P/3. Hence, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-