ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pleadings are complete. Pinpointing the urgency in the matter, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that although an interim order was passed by this Court and pursuant thereto, proceedings of departmental enquiry were made standstill, but now DPC is to be convened for promotions and the case of petitioner for promotion will be deferred on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding. Ergo, looking to the urgency and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter has been finally heard.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking for solitary relief that the charge-sheet dtd. 24/2/2021 (Annexure-P/2) issued to the petitioner by the respondents be quashed.

(3.) Mala fide is made sole basis for issuance of charge-sheet, which has given rise to this petition assailing such charge-sheet. It is averred in the petition that on the fulcrum of fallacious and fictitious allegations, the charges framed are entirely based upon appraisal report of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the context of one Shri Prateek Joshi, who was subjected to search-operation under Sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the petitioner is a police officer and he was never subjected to any such search. In the search drive of the Income Tax Department against Shri Prateek Joshi, some loose papers containing alleged unaccounted cash transaction was found and only on the basis of such entries, an undue inference was drawn that the petitioner had handed over an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore to Shri Prateek Joshi and on that foundation, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was issued on 24/2/2021 labeling a charge against that in the search against Shri Prateek Joshi some entries were detected in loose paper showing an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore and as such it was presumed that the petitioner paid Rs.7.5 Crore in cash and such conduct falls within the misconduct and is violative to the provisions of Sec. 3(1)(i), (iii) and 5(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.