ANAND RAM TANDAN Vs. STATE GOVT. C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg, the 3rd respondent herein, under the provisions of M.P. Police Regulations (for short "the Regulations"). The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was serving as Police Constable in the Police Department of the State. While serving, the petitioner was served with a charge memo and the charge framed against the petitioner reads thus: fookfgrk iRuh Jherh izehyk ckbZ fuoklh flyrjk ds thfor gksrs gq, ,d vU; efgyk kafr ckbZ dks iRuh cukdj j[kdj e/;izns flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 22 1 esa fn;s fufgr izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djukA

(2.) THE 3rd respondent not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner conducted a regular departmental enquiry as required under the Regulations and found him guilty of the charge. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent by his order dated 31-10-1999 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner as a disciplinary measure. THE petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order of the 3rd respondent preferred an administrative appeal to the Inspector General of Police, Raipur, the 2nd respondent herein. THE 2nd respondent having examined the charge, the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the charge was defectively framed against the petitioner-delinquent, that there is no legal evidence to substantiate the charge that the petitioner contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent by his order dated 4-2-2000 set aside the order of the 3rd respondent dated 31-10-1999. While doing so, the 2nd respondent, however, directed the 3rd respondent-Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the petitioner departmentally by framing appropriate charge. THE 2nd respondent vide the same order also directed that the absence of the petitioner from the duty during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and after punishment was imposed on him till the appeal was decided be adjusted against the leave at his credit.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 4-2-2000 instituted Original Application No. 365 of 2000 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench (for short "the Tribunal") insofar as the 2nd respondent permitted launching departmental proceedings against him de novo and directed to adjust the period of absence of the petitioner against the leave at his credit. That Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 2-5-2000 marked as Annexure P-l. The Tribunal has opined that the 2nd respondent has the power to direct de novo enquiry as provided under Sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 270 of the Regulations. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner in adjusting his period of absence against the leave at his credit, the Tribunal has observed that since the petitioner did not make any representation before the Competent Authority regarding his above grievance, there is no need for considering that grievance.