DRIGPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Constable was subjected to a departmental enquiry on account of allegation levelled against him by the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was a driver, took the Government vehicle in intoxicated condition on a public place and committed a serious misconduct. The petitioner also caused damage to the police station. The enquiry was conducted after obtaining the reply of the petitioner and a finding was given holding that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct. The previous record of services of the petitioner was taken note of and a major penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the departmental appellate authority, which was dismissed, therefore, a mercy petition was filed by him, which too was dismissed. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.2298/2011 against the said order of penalty. It was contended that under Regulation 226 of M.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as Regulations for brevity), the petitioner was not to be imposed with such a major penalty and, in fact, the penalty of removal from service was liable to be set aside. These aspects were not considered by the disciplinary authority as also by the disciplinary appellate authority, therefore, the order was liable to be quashed.

(2.) This Court considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Mysore Vs. K. Manche Gowda, 1964 AIR(SC) 506 as also in the case of Surendra Prasad Pande Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2007 3 MPHT 565 , reached to the conclusion that the penalty of removal from service was a severe penalty which was required to be reconsidered by the authority. The order of penalty was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for passing the order in view of the observations made by the Court with respect to the law laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court.

(3.) The petitioner approached the respondents authorities once again and made several applications. However, instead of considering the provisions of Regulation 226 of Regulations, again by the impugned order dated 24.9.2012, the petitioner is visited with a penalty of compulsory retirement without regularising the period of his absence from service but regularising the period of suspension only, therefore, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.