GORAKH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26/7/1997 by which in a joint enquiry conducted against both the petitioners, a punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon them. Petitioners are also aggrieved by order dated 29/10/1997 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing their appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case reveal that the petitioner No.2 was serving on the post of Sub -Inspector of Police and the petitioner No.2 was serving on the post of Constable in the same Department and it is alleged that on 20/2/1996, they were caught gambling and they were also under the influence of Alcohol at the time they were caught by the higher Authorities. Both of them were placed under suspension on 21/2/1996 and a Preliminary Enquiry took place. Thereafter a charge sheet was served to the petitioners and a joint enquiry was held in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has vehemently argued before this Court that in the Departmental Enquiry no Presenting Officer was appointed at any point of time and it was the Enquiry Officer who has conducted the examination as well as cross ­ examination of all the witnesses. He has also argued before this Court that the enquiry officer being a senior officer of the Police Department has pressurised the witnesses and in absence of a Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer who was the Judge in the Departmental Enquiry has acted as a Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by this court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui reported in (2005 MP LLJ 931) and his contention is that keeping in view the judgment delivered by this Court, the enquiry stands vitiated and the consequential punishment orders deserves to be set aside. It has also been argued that the two charges against the petitioners were in respect of consumption of Alcohol and the Doctor was not examined during the course of the Departmental Enquiry. Besides this, other grounds have also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties.