GAJENDRA SINGH VARDHAMAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though this appeal filed under section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is listed today on the question of admission, but a very short question with regard to imposition of minor penalty without cumulative effect in a proceeding held under section 16 of M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short) read alongwith the Police Regulation are involved in the matter, we propose to dispose of the appeal on merits at this stage, itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Appellant herein was working as Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Lanji, District Balaghat. He was entrusted with the responsibility of investigating crime no.15/2012 registered for offence under section 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C. In the matter even though the accused persons were arrested, but they were enlarged on bail in the light of the fact that chargesheet was not filed in the competent Court within the statutory period of sixty days. It seems that in the trial conducted the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratlam in his judgment Annexure P -15 dated 1.8.2013 made certain observations with regard to the conduct of inquiry officer in not filing the challan within time, resulting in granting bail to the accused persons. However, the petitioner filed a revision and got the observations against him expunged, but on the allegation of negligence in performance of duties and in not taking action in time for filing challan within sixty days chargesheet/show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Annexure P -17. The petitioner submitted the reply and based on the same the competent Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect. The appeal was filed by the petitioner vide Annexure P -19 and the State Government having dismissed the appeal, the writ petition was filed.

(3.) Even though various grounds were raised in the writ petition, the learned Writ Court found that a minor penalty has been imposed for dereliction of the duty and as the action is taken after following due process of law and as the petitioner is alleged to have committed delay in filing the chargesheet in a sensitive criminal matter, the writ Court refused to interfere in the matter. Now, in the appeal it was pointed out that while dealing with the matter neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have considered the defence of the petitioner. The authorities should have discussed the defence and thereafter recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner after discarding or accepting the defence and explanation. It is said that if a disciplinary action is taken and even when only a minor penalty is imposed, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to evaluate and record reasons so as to accept or reject the defence. In this case this procedure has not been followed and, therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated. The writ Court having dismissed the petition without delving into these legal aspects, interference be made in this appeal.