VISHNU PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar as contained in Annexure P-12 dated 30/12/06 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner as a measure of punishment after conducting a departmental enquiry in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1966'), petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was working as a Police Constable and at the relevant time in the year 2004 when the cause of action arose for taking the impugned action, petitioner was posted in Police Station, Sagar w.e.f. 4/02/04. As Gajrath Mahotsava was being celebrated in the district and in connection with the same, petitioner was deputed to control the general public and vehicles from entering into the city of Sagar. Petitioner was allocated the duty in the area between Bus Stand to Khurai Tiraha. A complaint was made in the 'Rojnamcha Sanha' by the S. D. O. P. to the effect that on 4/02/04, petitioner was found absent from the place of duty. Based on the aforesaid entry made, the Superintendent of Police issued a notice to the petitioner and, thereafter, passed an order on 9th February, 2004 Annexure P-4 imposing a punishment of censure and directing for its entry in the service book of the petitioner.

(3.) REFERRING to the provisions of Rule 29 (1)(iii), Shri K. N. Pethia submits that the appellate authority can exercise the power of review only within the period of 6 months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed and not beyond that. In this case, the order which is proposed to be reviewed was passed on 9th February, 2004 and as the order for review Annexure P-6 was passed after a period of more than one year, it is said to be unsustainable. It is also pointed out by him that the review is ordered by the Superintendent of Police who is the disciplinary authority and not by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the first ground of challenge is that the impugned action taken by reviewing an earlier order of punishment is in violation of the Rule 29 (1)(iii) and, therefore, on this ground alone, the same is liable to be quashed. Thereafter, Shri Pethia took me through the documents and material available on record and submitted that the entire action taken against the petitioner is due to malafides of S. D. O. P. Shri Sudhir Agrawal which is unsustainable. The document which was available and which affirmed the basis for issuing the charge- sheet i.e. the 'Rojnamcha Sanha' was never produced and in the enquiry, inspite of this the allegations were held to be proved only on the basis of the earlier statement of witnesses without the material and documents being produced. The second evidence is not sufficient enough to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges, the action is assailed. Accordingly, contending that the entire action is illegal, Shri Pethia prays for interference into the matter.