MOHKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Department of Home in month of February, 1963. While he was posted as Constable at Police Station, Aron in the district of Gwalior in the year 1986 he was served with a charge -sheet as per Annexure -A -1. Two charges were levelled against him; (i) during his subsistence of first marriage he got married to another woman and thereby violated the Rule of Conduct as provided under the M.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965; and (ii) his behavior with Aadivses of village Aron was indiscipline. The petitioner disputed the allegation:; made against him and putforth his stand that he never misbehaved with Aadivases. The allegation of second marriage has been categorically disputed by the petitioner.

(2.) AFTER the explanation was offered by the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer who proceeded with the inquiry. During the inquiry the Presenting Officer examined four witnesses, namely. Babu, Bhikaram, Bijlu and Laxminarayan. The deposition of said witnesses have been brought on record as Annexures -A -2 to A -6 respectively. The petitioner did not examine any witness. The Inquiry Officer vide his report Annexure -A -7 returned a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. In view of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer a show -cause notice vide Annexure -A -8 dated 3 -8 -1987 was issued to the petitioner along with the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation pointing out many a defect in the proceeding. The explanation of the petitioner was not accepted by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and he passed the order of dismissal as per Annexure -A -11. Being dissatisfied the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police who dismissed the appeal as per the order contained in Annexure -13. An application for review was preferred before the Inspector General of Police, the respondent No. 3, but the same did not meet with success. A representation made to the Director General of Police faced rejection,

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that in the inquiry proceeding the charges were proved and, therefore, the assertion that it is a case of no evidence is unacceptable. It is also putforth that the assertion that the second marriage has not been proved is not correct and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the punishment is excessive.