RAJENDRA PRASAD PATHAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable on 25/9/2012 in District Force, Ashoknagar. It appears that because of some medical condition, petitioner remained absent from his duties for the period between 17/7/2016 to 12/9/2016 (total 58 days) unauthorizedly and therefore, a charge-sheet was issued against him with the allegations of carelessness and insubordination and thus violation of Clause 64 (2) and (4) of the Police Regulation. In departmental enquiry, S.D.O.P. Mungawali was appointed as Enquiry Officer and enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved and placed the matter before S.P. Ashoknagar, who inflicted a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect which would have adverse bearing over the pensionary and other retiral dues of the petitioner. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal but same was dismissed by DIG, Gwalior Range, Gwalior. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.

(3.) It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that respondents proceeded arbitrarily and Enquiry Officer acted as a presenting officer. He himself cross-examined the witnesses which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gaya Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2008 (4) M.P.L.J. 35 and the same was subsequently followed in the case of Ramesh Chand Rathore Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2010 (II) MPWN 80. It is further submitted that action of respondents is violation of Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations also because punishment has not been given as per the gravity of the offence. Here, harsh punishment has been given. Petitioner is serving on the lowest post i.e. Police Constable. Before passing the order of such extreme punishment, moderate punishment ought to have been given. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. 2013 (2) MPLJ 402 to submit that harsh punishment is punishment of last resort and therefore, suitable calibration is required to be done in the case.