RAJESH UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a dismissed Constable, has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2006, by which a punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon him. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 21-6-2006 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police Range Gwalior, Gwalior (Appellate Authority), rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 4-12-2006 passed by the Inspector General of Police, by which a Mercy Petition preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal has also been turned down.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable with effect from 22-7-1997 and was posted at Police Station Billaua, District Gwalior in the year 2005, i.e., at the time the alleged incident took place, on the basis of which he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further stated that a charge-sheet was issued on 27-6-2005 on account of the alleged misconduct and the petitioner was directed to file reply to the charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charges levelled against him and denied the charges by submitting a reply on 28-7-2005. The petitioner has further stated the appointing authority being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner appointed an Inquiry Officer and Inquiry Officer conducted an inquiry into the matter. The petitioner has further stated that the Inquiry Officer has held the charges established against him and on the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 31-1-2006 and the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Inspector General of Police while dismissing the Mercy Petition of the petitioner. The petitioner's further contention is that as per the charge-sheet dated 27-6-2005, three charges were levelled against him, which are as under :-

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that Complainant Pooran Singh Yadav in his statement recorded during the Departmental Enquiry has categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner was not present and has not demanded any money from him on 8-2-2005. The petitioner's contention is that once the complainant has categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that he is not the person who has misbehaved with the complainant on 8-2-2005, the Inquiry Officer could have not established the Charge No. 1. In respect of Charge No. 2, i.e. unauthorized absence from 10-9-2004 to 3-10-2004, the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid period was regularized by passing an order dated 2-8-2005 and the petitioner was punished with a punishment of censure by the Superintendent of Police and, therefore, once he was punished in respect of the same period by the Superintendent of Police, he could have been punished for the same again. In respect of Charge No. 3, the petitioner has stated that the Station House Officer had permitted him orally to use the vehicle and in support of the same, a document was produced before the Inquiry Officer and in spite of that the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the Charge No. 3 also. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the punishment order passed by the Superintendent of Police as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority and also the order passed by the Inspector General of Police dismissing the Mercy Petition of the petitioner. The petitioner has also argued before this Court that the Inquiry Officer has also acted as a Presenting Officer and has cross-examined the witnesses during the course of the inquiry and, therefore, the inquiry also stands vitiated. However, the petitioner before this Court has categorically stated that he is not claiming any backwages in the matter.