M.M.MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29/08/2002- Annexure-P/2 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur whereby the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Sub Inspector was vide order of punishment demoted to the minimum pay scale of the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. The challenge is also to the order dated 12/11/2002-Annexure-P/1 passed by the Appellate Authority who has rejected the appeal upholding the order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that, a complaint was received against the present petitioner in respect of an act of misbehavior which he has done with one Manuram Kavar on 01/12/2001 for which the chargesheet was issued on 20/02/2002. Subsequently, the concerned authorities after issuance of the chargesheet and finding the reply-the chargesheet to be not satisfactory, subjected the petitioner to a departmental enquiry. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Raipur was appointed as an enquiry officer to ascertain whether the charges levelled against the petitioner was justified or not? Subsequently, after the enquiry was concluded, the enquiry officer submitted the report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled and the disciplinary authority vide Annexure P/2 had imposed the order of punishment upon the petitioner to which an appeal was preferred and the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-P/1 has rejected the appeal.

(3.) The ground of challenge by the counsel for the petitioner is that, it is a case where the enquiry conducted against the petitioner itself stands vitiated for the reason that, the enquiry officer in the instant case has acted also as a presenting officer and as also extensively cross-examined the witnesses on behalf of the management so also the present petitioner who was delinquent in the enquiry. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the very fact that the enquiry officer has himself acted both as a presenting officer as also the inquiry officer has by itself created substantial prejudice to the interest of the petitioner and therefore the enquiry and the findings of enquiry officer is not sustainable and same deserves to be set-aside. He further relied upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of G.M.Telecom Factory, Jabalpur Vs. P.V.Upadhyay and Anr [1991 MPST 204] , decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of N.R.Dhananjayan Vs. Management of Indian Overseas Bank and Anr[2006 LLR 726] and recent decision of this Court in the case of Bablu Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.[ILR 2017 CG 1434] .