JAGDISH CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court, who is a Head Constable serving the Home Department (Police) of the State of Madhya Pradesh, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 27/1/2011 by which a punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 3/10/2011 by which his appeal has been rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that on account of some false and frivolous complaint dt. 19/11/09, a charge sheet was issued and it was alleged that he has demanded and received a sum of Rs.1700/ - from one Nathu Banjara. Petitioner has further stated that a Departmental Enquiry took place and the complaint Nathu Banjara has categorically stated in the Departmental Enquiry that the petitioner has never demanded nor has received illegal gratification at any point of time. The contention of the petitioner is that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are perverse findings as, as many as 7 witnesses have stated categorically before the enquiry officer that the petitioner has never demanded illegal gratification nor has received illegal gratification at any point of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued before this Court that the enquiry officer has acted as a Prosecutor as he has examined and cross examined the witnesses during the course of enquiry and, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority based upon the enquiry report and the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be set aside in the light of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Rajesh Upadhyay Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2010 MPLSR 382.

(2.) A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and it has been admitted in the return that no Presenting Officer was appointed at any point of time and earlier in most of the cases the Police Department has not appointed Presenting Officer. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that a circular has been issued on 1.10.10 by which the State Government has directed the disciplinary authorities to appoint a Presenting Officer in all cases. The respondents have further stated that as the petitioner has raised illegal demand from certain accused persons was rightly charge sheeted and thereafter an enquiry was held in the matter. The respondents have stated that the Inquiry Officer has rightly held the petitioner guilty and no case for interference in the matter is made out.

(3.) IN the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was charge sheeted on 3.2.10. The charge sheet enclosed alongwith the writ petition reflects the following imputation of misconduct : -