NARENDRA SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by petitioner seeking following relief(s):-

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector. Charge-sheet dtd. 1/4/2013 was issued against petitioner and thereafter petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. After submission of reply, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner, the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, Gwalior, passed the order dtd. 21/9/2015 (Annexure P/1) imposing punishment of reversion of petitioner from the post of Inspector to Sub-Inspector for a period of three years. It was further mentioned in the order that this was a temporary decision and the final decision would be taken after receiving petitioner's reply. It is further submitted that there is no provision under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and M.P. Police Regulations for taking a temporary decision. Learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India and Another, (2007) 1 SCC 331 submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had already made up its mind before affording petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Such a post-decisional hearing is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that the allegation made in the charge-sheet merely falls under the category of carelessness or negligence and such an act cannot be treated as misconduct. Learned counsel for petitioner also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in S.D. Bind v. Union of India and Others, 2015 (1) M.P.L.J. 74.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order is not a punishment order, rather it is only a show-cause notice and the final punishment has not been imposed by impugned order dtd. 21/9/2015 (Annexure P/1). He relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28.