DAL CHAND AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order Annexure P/14 dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Director General of Police rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 7.6.2003 Annexure P/12 passed by the Inspector General of Police, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, petitioner has filed this writ petition. At the relevant time when the impugned action was taken, petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station, Kindrai, District Seoni. A complaint was received in the office of Superintendent of Police to the effect from one Swarooplal that his father has died in the village about six months back and for forwarding his claim for grant of pension under a particular scheme, the petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) Record indicates that a show cause notice Annexure P/1 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner's reply to the same Annexure P/2 being found to be not satisfactory, a preliminary enquiry was ordered which was conducted by the S.D.O.R. Police, Seoni and based on the report submitted by the said authority, a charge sheet Annexure P/3 was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Seoni on 21.11.2002. Petitioner denied the allegations leveled in the charge sheet, gave a detailed reply, however, finding the same to be unsatisfactory, the Additional Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry, five witnesses were examined and on the basis of evidence that came in the Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding, forwarded to the petitioner vide Annexure P/10 holding the petitioner is guilty of charges leveled against him. Petitioner's reply to the show cause notice being found to be not satisfactory, impugned order Annexure P/12 has been passed by the Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Range and appeal and mercy appeal having been rejected, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) During the course of hearing Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel raised various contentions. The contentions put forth by him pertains to the conduct of the SDOP in conducting preliminary enquiry in an illegal manner, so also with regard to non supply of certain documents which were relevant and were with regard to illegal manner of conducting preliminary enquiry. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out various discrepancies in the enquiry, perversity in the findings of Enquiry Officer and also raised grounds with regard to non issuance of show cause notice before imposing the punishment by the Competent Authority, act of the Appellate Authority in not deciding the appeal in accordance with law. However, a question of legal ground raised by Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel was to the effect that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police himself received the reply to the charge sheet and on being dis-satisfied with the reply appointed the Additional Superintendent of Police as Enquiry Officer, got the enquiry conducted and after receipt of enquiry report forwarded the entire matter to the Inspector General of Police for taking action. Taking me through the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the definition of disciplinary authority' as contained in Clause Rule 2(d), the punishment envisaged under the rule as contained in Rule 10, the authority competent to impose the punishment as detailed in Rule 12, the provisions of Rule 13 with regard to initiation of departmental proceedings and the procedure for imposing penalty as contained in Rule 14, 15 and 16, submitted that as per the Schedule to the Discipline and Appeal Rules with regard to an employee holding the post of Sub Inspector, the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary Authority is the Deputy Inspector General of Police and accordingly, it is argued by him that initiation of departmental enquiry by the Superintendent of Police who is not the disciplinary authority vitiates the entire proceedings. Accordingly, Shri A. M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel submits that if the initiation of the enquiry itself is by an unauthorized person then the final punishment imposed are also stands vitiated. Accordingly, on these counts Shri A. M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel prays for interference into the matter.