LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-111

ASHOK PATEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On September 06, 2013
Ashok Patel Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, four in number, have approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the order dated 01.09.2012 by which the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur has directed recovery of Rs.10,000/ - each from the petitioners as also one more Police employee, on the ground of some complaint made before the M.P. Human Rights Commission with respect to the atrocities of the Police employees with the children of the village. After an enquiry, an order was issued for giving compensation of Rs.25,000/ - to the children and Rs.25,000/ - to the News Reporter, who too was subjected to atrocities. The M.P. Human Rights Commission while making the recommendations, specifically directed that the amount of compensation was required to be paid by the State Government and if so wish, the State may recover the said amount from the erring officials as per law. It is the contention of the petitioners that though charge -sheet was issued to them making allegations that they have misbehaved with the Press Photographer and with the children and thereby committed misconduct but there was no charge of recovery of any such amount directed to be paid as compensation. After the enquiry the order of withholding of one increment of pay without cumulative effect for a period of one year was imposed on the petitioners. There was no direction to make recovery of any such amount of compensation paid to such persons, despite this the Superintendent of Police issued the order of recovery. It is the contention of the petitioners that without following the due process, only on the strength of the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission, the recovery has been directed, which according to law could not have been done, without conducting the enquiry as contemplated in M.P. Police Regulations (herein after referred to as 'Police Regulations') as also in Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (herein after referred to as 'CCA Rules). It is, thus, contended that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) WHILE entertaining the writ petition this Court has granted interim stay on 30.11.2012 and has directed that no recovery be made from the petitioners pursuance to the impugned order. By filing a return it is contended by the respondents that only after holding a departmental enquiry since the misconduct of the petitioners was found proved, a direction as was given to recover the amount of compensation from the erring officials by the Human Rights Commission, this direction has been implemented by issuing the impugned order and, therefore, no illegality in passing the order has been committed by the respondents. It is contended that by issuing a separate charge -sheet for the alleged misconduct of causing loss to the State Government, when the misconduct on account of which compensation was directed to be paid is proved, the enquiry was not to be conducted for recovery of the said amount of compensation either under the provisions of the Police Regulations or under the CCA Rules. Thus, it is contended that petition being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed and interim stay granted is liable to be vacated.

(3.) THE order placed on record passed after the departmental enquiry indicates that only one charge was levelled against the persons like petitioners, i.e. by misbehaving with the Press Photographer and damaging his camera, they have violated the conduct Rules and the charge against some of the employees was that by putting the minor children in custody in the Police Station, they committed misconduct of dereliction of duty but in none of the charges it was also alleged that because of any report submitted by the Human Rights Commission since misconduct of the persons like petitioners was proved in the said enquiry and in terms of the recommendations made by the Human Rights Commission compensation was paid to the aggrieved persons, the same was a loss to the public exchequer or to the State and the same was required to be recovered from the petitioners. Thus, in fact the charge of recovery was not included in the charge -sheet issued to the petitioners. If that is so, it cannot be said that procedure for making recovery of loss caused to the State Government, prescribed either in the Police Regulations or in the CCA Rules, was followed by the respondents. In view of this, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted. Specially when the M.P. Human Rights Commission categorically directed that the respondent -State was required to pay the amount of compensation to the aggrieved persons and if so wish, the amount could be recovered from the persons like petitioners after following due process of law, the recovery of loss caused to the State Government should have been made by following the procedure as laid -down under the Rules and the Regulations. In absence of such summary proceedings prescribed in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and Regulation 214 of Police Regulations, the order issued by the respondent No.3 cannot be sustained.