BRIJESH SINGH BHADAURIA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner has called in question the disciplinary proceedings, the punishment order (Annexure A-16) dated 23.7.2001, the appellate order dated 4.2.2007 whereby the appeal was rejected and also the order passed by the D.G.P. whereby the earlier order passed in mercy appeal was set aside. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Constable Driver in the respondents department. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 29.1.2000. By filing reply dated 16.2.2000 (Annexure A -3), the petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter, the enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report and found all the charges as proved against the petitioner. The enquiry officer's report was served on the petitioner along with show cause Annexure A -14. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply (Annexure A -15). By punishment order dated 23.7.2001, the S.P. Morena dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner's appeal also could not fetch any result and was rejected on 4.2.2002 (Annexure A -17). The petitioner preferred mercy appeal which was decided by Annexure A -18. The D.G.P. modified the punishment of dismissal by imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. However, by Annexure A -25 dated 29.11.2002, the earlier order dated 23.7.2001 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service was restored.

(3.) MRS . Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The principles of natural justice were duly followed. The enquiry officer considered each and every aspect and prepared the detailed report. The petitioner's representation was considered by disciplinary authority. The appellate order is also speaking dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal memo, hence no interference is warranted. By relying on the charges, it is submitted that the punishment is commensurate to the misconduct and no interference is warranted.