PRAVEEN GARG Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.7.2020 passed by the respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Ratlam whereby the services of the petitioner, who was posted as Constable have been terminated on account of his involvement in a case registered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act at crime No.341/2020 at Police Station-Nagda, District-Ujjain.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving any proper opportunity of hearing and without conducting any formal enquiry, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel has submitted that admittedly, the alleged offence took place on 15.7.2020 whereby the the petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e. on 15.7.2020 itself as he was found to be transporting more than 50 bulk liters of illegal liquor contained in 43 boxes. The petitioner was suspended on the same day and a show cause notice was issued to him and while he was in jail, he also submitted the reply on 18.7.2020 but without considering the reply and without conducting any departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed on 18.07.2020 from the services, i.e. within a period of three days from 15.7.2020. Thus, it is submitted that the order is being arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, counsel has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, a reply to the petition has also been filed by the State and Ms. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has other efficacious, alternate and statutory remedies available in the form of an appeal under the provisions of Police Regulations 214 and 262 of the Police Regulations and also an appeal under Rule 23 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as the C.C.A. Rules of 1966. Thus, it is submitted that instead of having the aforesaid remedy the petitioner has directly approached before this Court and as such the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on his short ground only.