VINOD KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the orders passed by the competent disciplinary authority ­ respondent No.4 on 6.12.2004 dismissing the petitioner from service; order-dated 15.1.2005 passed by respondent No.3 ­ appellate authority, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner; and, orders-dated 31.3.2005 and 1.7.2006, passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1, rejecting the revision petition and the mercy appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) PETITIONER was holding the post of 'Constable' in the Police Department. On 4.4.2004, in the night, the Deputy Inspector General (hereinafter referred to as 'DIG') of Police went on a round in the area and while inspecting the area it was found that petitioner and one Jitendra Singh, Constable, were indulging in certain illegal activities. It was found that a large number of trucks were stopped and checking and verification of trucks were going on. Petitioner and Jitendra Singh were found standing there. However, petitioner was not wearing his identification card and name plate and Jitendra Singh was without his official cap. When the DIG summoned both of them, Jitendra Singh ran away and on inquiry from the petitioner it was revealed that both petitioner and Jitendra Singh were making recovery of Rs.50.00 each from the trucks and at the instance of the DIG, petitioner handed over to him Rs.200.00 i.e.... four notes of Rs.50.00 denomination. The DIG took the said amount, went into the Police Station a Roznamcha was prepared. Based on the same, a charge-sheet was issued to both the petitioner and Jitendra Singh and on the basis of the departmental inquiry, two charges which were framed, which were found to be established in the departmental inquiry and the impugned action taken.

(3.) CHALLENGE to the impugned action in this writ petition is made mainly on two counts. The first ground is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge No.1 is a perverse finding, which is not supported by any evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. The second allegation is that in the case of co-employee Jitendra Singh, his appeal has been allowed and he has been reinstated in service and a punishment of 'stoppage of one increment' has been imposed upon him whereas in the case of the petitioner, he has been discriminated in as much as the harshest punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on him. That apart, it was stated that the DIG, who was the main witness, was not examined and the appeal also was decided by the said DIG and, therefore, the said procedural infirmity vitiates the entire action. It is also argued that the DIG acted as a complainant and the appellate authority and, therefore, the entire action is illegal.