ARUN PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question involved in this matter is whether Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.) is competent to issue charge sheet and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner ?

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for determination of this question are as under:- The petitioner is an Inspector working with the respondents. His appointing authority was Inspector General of Police. It is stated by Shri Pavan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rules are subsequently amended and now the State Government has become the appointing authority for the post of Inspector. By referring to the Schedule of power under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity "CCA Rules"), it is stated that the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is Inspector General (I.G.). The charge sheet is issued by DIG and the said authority also appointed Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer. Thus, it is clear that the charge sheet issued against the petitioner is neither by the appointing authority nor by disciplinary authority. The petitioner has assailed the issuance of charge sheet and appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer by the D.I.G., on the ground that the said officer is neither appointing nor disciplinary authority nor empowered under rule 13 by Governor, and therefore, under the CCA Rules, the exercise of power by the said authority is bad and impermissible in law.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.