GOVIND WARKADE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 17-3-2004 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Director General of Police and order dated 8-11 -2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, where under the petitioner was punished with by withholding increment with cumulative effect having effect on the pension of the petitioner and the suspension period was treated as suspension only.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner working as Assistant Sub Inspector at Kotwali, Rajnandgaon was served with a charge-sheet dated 24-6-2001 (Annexure P-1) by the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, to the effect that the petitioner was ordered to work in the Naxalile affected Police Station, Aundhi. THE petitioner, the delinquent employee, did not carry out the said order. Thus, it is a grave misconduct. Reply was filed. Enquiry Officer was appointed. THE Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Ambagarh Chowki, after having considered and having examined the documents and witnesses adduced by the prosecution as well as by the delinquent employee held that the charge to the effect that he had not joined the police Chowki, Aundhi, in Naxalite affected area and has shown his cowardliness, is not found proved, as the petitioner had joined the post and performed the duties as assigned to him. Pursuant to the findings of the enquiry report dated 31-12-2001, the petitioner vide his representation dated 12-1-2002 (Annexure P-3), requested the Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 4, to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him.

(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner moved an appeal before the Director General of Police, respondent No. 2. The Director General of Police, vide order dated 22-11-2002 (Annexure P-7) rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Inspector General of Police. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 took up the matter again sua motu and without issuing any notice, as required, to the petitioner, and set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3 and maintained the order passed by the respondent No. 4 to the effect that the increment with cumulative effect was withheld. Hence this petition.