PURSHOTTAM IVNE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition was originally filed as Original Application No. 117/2000 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal, which on closer of the Tribunal has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as a Writ Petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is against the order of termination issued against him on 08.12.1998 after a departmental enquiry as against the order by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on 19.05.1999. It is contended that the petitioner, who was working as a Constable (Peon) in the establishment of the Superintendent of Police (QD) Police Headquarter, Bhopal was subjected to a departmental enquiry upon issuance of a charge sheet on 06.05.1998. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner. A reply was filed by the petitioner, but the same was not found satisfactory by the departmental authorities and, therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.H.Q., Bhopal was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After conducting such an enquiry a report was given and upon receipt of the report a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing the penalty of termination from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation but instead of considering the same, without application of mind and without following the procedure laid down under the M.P. Police Regulations, the order impugned was issued on 08.12.1998, terminating the petitioner from services. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority but instead of deciding the appeal in appropriate manner, an order was issued on 17.05.1999 and appeal was dismissed.

(3.) Upon issuance of the notices of Original Application, a return was filed by the respondents before this Court. In the return, it is contended that enquiry was conducted properly in terms of the provisions made in the Regulations. The petitioner was medically examined and it was found that he was in drunken state. This being so, the charge against him was found proved by the Enquiry Officer. Full opportunity of defence was extended to the petitioner and that being so, since it was found that the second charge with respect to the avoidance of the important duty of the Legislative Assembly work was also found proved, the second show cause notice was given to the petitioner to extend one more opportunity of defence and after considering the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, rightly he was removed from the services. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also considered in appropriate manner by the Appellate Authority and since there was no substance in the appeal, the same has been rightly dismissed. In view of this, it is contended that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief claimed in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.