SOBERAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of Head Constable was served with a charge-sheet. Reply of the said charge- sheet was submitted by the petitioner and thereafter enquiry was conducted by the respondents/department and thereafter enquiry officer has given its report. Upon the report of enquiry officer, punishment order was passed and the punishment of stopping of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed. Suspension period has also been directed to be treated as suspended. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before learned appellate authority. Thereafter, Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of petitioner without considering the material aspects of the matter. The charges which have been levelled out of those charges it has been found by the authority that charge No.1 is partially proved and charge No.2&3 are completely proved. Petitioner has specifically taken defence that Station House Officer has not given the executed warrant of Bhikam Singh. At no point of time, it was instructed that warantee has to be kept in lockup. There is no document in that regard and since said Bhikam Singh was not given under the custody of petitioner, there arises no question of permitting him to abscond. The act of handing over of warantee is required to have documentary proof, ocular evidence in that regard is not acceptable. In such circumstances, the illegality has been committed. The document pertaining to execution of warrant has also not been handed over to the petitioner. In such circumstances, illegality was clear and apparent on the face of record. It be noted here that the authority without applying its own mind only on the basis of conjecture and surmises has passed the order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the ocular testimony of prosecution witness is not admissible as the document pertaining to execution of warrant and also the document pertaining to handing over arrested person was required to be there. Absence of these documents clearly falsifies the contention and findings are perverse. In such circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority has not applied its mind. No finding has been recorded by the disciplinary authority. No independent application of mind is there. The order of appellate authority is non speaking. The authorities have totally failed to discharge their obligation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment has held that the appellate authority being the court of fact is required to consider each and every documents of both the parties and it is also required to take into consideration the contention of the parties and simultaneously, it is also required to assign the reason.