JANKI PRASAD TIWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as a Constable in Police Chowki, Barka, District Singrauli. Challenging the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide charge sheet Annexure P/6 dated 16.12.2011, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is a case of the petitioner that the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner due to malafides of Superintendent of Police, Singrauli who has transferred the petitioner on more than 12 occasions and as the petitioner has filed writ petitions challenging the transfer orders and as the transfer order was stayed, the Superintendent of Police was personally annoyed with the petitioner and therefore, to victimize the petitioner not only he has been suspended but the charge sheet in question has been issued. Inter alia contending that the allegations against the petitioner with regard to taking Rs.35,000/ -Rupees from the complainant Shri Ramniwas Vaishya for exonerating his brothers from a criminal case was enquired into by the SDOP and a report Annexure P/4 was submitted by which petitioner has been exonerated. Inspite thereof proceedings into the charge sheet is malafidely continued, the entire action is challenged and the prayer made is that the charge sheet be quashed.

(2.) SHRI Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents refutes the aforesaid and points out that after the report was submitted with regard to enquiry conducted by Assistant Sub Inspector and the SDOP again representations were received by the Superintendent of Police from the complainant and therefore, Superintendent of Police thought it appropriate to refer the entire matter to a Senior Officer namely, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Singrauli and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Singrauli conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and submitted a report Annexure R/3. The Assistant Superintendent of Police in the enquiry has examined various witnesses and prima facie it was found that for not registering the case against the brothers of the complainant Shri Ramniwas Vaishya, petitioner and others have taken some money and therefore, the impugned action is taken. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, therefore, submits that as departmental enquiry initiated is on the basis of prima facie case established in the enquiry conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, in his report Annexure R/3 no case is made out for interference now as there are conflicting report in the matter which shows there is some dispute which requires inquiry. Accordingly, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that action is unsustainable.

(3.) AS far as malafides with regard to transfer is concerned, Shri Rajesh Tiwari points out that malafide are alleged against the Superintendent of Police in transferring the petitioner on 12 occasions but on each of the occasion the Inspector General of Police has canceled the order of transfer and in the present case, representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Police vide Annexure R/5 and therefore, it is stated that no illegality in the matter has been committed. Shri Rajesh Tiwari submits that out of 12 alleged transfer orders 10 orders were passed by the then Superintendent of Police, Singrauli who is no more holding the said post, he has been transferred and the charge sheet has been issued by another Superintendent of Police in whose tenure two transfer orders that too, from one police station to another has been passed. Shri Rajesh Tiwari submits that in the present case only a vague allegation of malafide is made which has not been substantiated by any material, therefore, no interference into the matter is called for.