UPENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of termination dtd. 9/6/2025 Annexure P-9, appellate order, Annexure P-11 dtd. 23/8/2016, order dtd. 16/3/2017, Annexure P-14 and also order dtd. 19/4/2024, Annexure P-17 and seeking a direction to the respondents to give arrears of the salary from the date of termination of the services of the petitioner alongwith 12% interest.

(2.) Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed on 4/7/2012 on the post of Constable (Driver) under Respondent No. 2 and given the rank of constable No. 536 by the department. The petitioner's wife was living with her mother and father due to family dispute between petitioner and her. The petitioner's wife registered a case bearing crime No.13/2009 dtd. 14/1/2009 under Sec. 498(A), 323, 506 IPC case before Mahila Police station Indore and other case under crime No. 309/2008 under Ss. 324, 294, 506, 279, and 34 IPC. In this matter the petitioner was co-accused and case was registered at the Police Station Dhar. In this matter the Petitioner was acquitted prior to appointment. Petitioner's wife also stated in complaint that the petitioner has obtained Post of the constable suppressing facts at the time of appointment of the petitioner and that the petitioner had made second marriage with the Pinky Chouhan and by wedlock there are two sons Krishna and Kush. The Respondent No. 2 forwarded above complaint to the Additional SP Distt. Dewas.on 21/1/2014 and directed that enquiry be conducted with respective complaint filed by the wife of Upendra Singh. After the enquiry the respondent No.2/SP Dewas sent letter dtd. 21/2/2014 to the respondent No. 3 alongwith enquiry report and complaint of Pratibha Chouhan mentioning that complainant Pratibha Chouhan was married with petitioner on 9/5/2006 and by report dtd. 24/1/2009 a Crime No.13/09 Undersec. 498(A), 323, 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner and which is pending before IMFC Indore as Case No. 3506 and it is found that Crime No.309/08 Sec. 324, 294, 506, 279 and 34 IPC was registered on 24/4/2008. This case has been disposed of on 31/3/2011 before JMFC Dhar and this case was disposed of before appointment of petitioner. The above information has been suppressed at the time of verification of character form. The enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner by the City Superintendent of Police and in the enquiry report it is mentioned that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved. The copy of the enquiry report has been given to the petitioner for representing the defense against the enquiry report. Petitioner challenged the termination order dtd. 9/6/2015 before the High court Bench at Indore in WP. No.530/2015 and by order dtd. 13/8/2015, he was directed to file an appeal against the order of dismissal. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3 and by order dtd. 23/8/2016 appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed mercy petition dtd. 1/3/2016 which was also rejected by order dtd. 16/3/2017. Due to compromise between the petitioner and the complainant, the petitioner was acquitted under Sec. 498(A) by order dtd. 28/6/2022 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class District Indore. After acquittal of the petitioner in above case, he sent a representation dtd. 6/2/2024 to the Respondent No.4 for consideration of reinstatement in service. By order dtd. 19/4/2024 the Additional Director General of police (Legal 1) has rejected the representation.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of termination of the petitioner on the ground of suppression of criminal case or mentioning of incorrect statements in the verification form, is contrary to the provisions of MP Police Regulation 226 (III) and (V) and Regulation 241 in which it is stated that after the acquittal, employee should be reinstated in service. He further argued that the termination on the ground of suppression of misrepresentation of facts and verification is contrary to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 equivalent to 2016 (4) MPLJ SC 332 . He referred paras 21, 22 of the said judgment.