DARBARI SINGH MARAVI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority after a departmental enquiry removing the petitioner from service and is also aggrieved by the consequential orders subsequently issued on his appeals and mercy petition.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was working on the post of Constable in the Police Department and was posted in Police Lines, Jabalpur. One Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi was also posted in the Police Lines, who was incharge for providing police guard for medical assistance to the convicts lodged in the Central Jail. One Mahendra Pyasi, brother of Ashok Pyasi, was transferred in the Central Jail, Jabalpur for medical assistance. Ashok Pyasi made a complaint that illegal demand was made by Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi for providing guard for taking said convict to the hospital. A trap was arranged by C.S.P., Omti, Jabalpur and signed notes were given to Ashok Pyasi, who offered the same to the petitioner, who in turn transferred the cash to Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi. The raid was conducted, signed notes were found in possession of Head Constable Ram Bahadur Tripathi, seizure was made and thereafter a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner and said Head Constable for conducting a joint enquiry. The allegation against the petitioner was receiving Rs.6,000/ - for the purposes of providing guard to Ashok Pyasi, which fact was denied by the petitioner by filing his reply. After a departmental enquiry, report was given by the Enquiry Officer holding that charge levelled against the petitioner was partially proved with respect to receipt of the money but dishonest intention or connivance of the petitioner was not proved. After accepting the enquiry report, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Such an order was assailed in appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Yet another appeal was preferred before the Inspector General of Police, which too was dismissed. A mercy petition was also filed by the petitioner but that was also dismissed by the Director General of Police, hence this writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that appreciating the overall evidence available on record, the Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the petitioner was guilty of receiving the money but his dishonest intention as alleged was not proved and, therefore, the charge was partially proved. If that report was considered and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority as a whole without recording his own finding, the Disciplinary Authority was not required to impose such major punishment on the petitioner. It is, thus, contended that the evidence available on record is not properly appreciated either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority and order of punishment is issued against the petitioner, which order is liable to be quashed.