KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner upon selection was appointed as a member of the Madhya Pradesh Police under Act V of the Police Act, 1861 and posted as Constable. Regulation 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') is relevant and the same is quoted below:

(2.) Earlier petitioner's services were terminated vide termination order dated 27/02/2015 (Annexure P/4) purportedly on the ground that criminal case No.21/2013 for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409, 417, 201 of IPC & sections 3(i), 3(ii)/4 of the M.P.Recognized Examination Act, 1937, sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 as well as sections 65 and 66 of the I.T.Act has been registered by the Special Task Force, M.P., Bhopal. The aforesaid termination order was challenged before the Principal Seat by filing W.P.No.11353/2015 and the Division Bench vide order dated 05/08/2015 has set aside the same. However, liberty was granted to the respondents' to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. The operative portion of the reads as under:

(3.) Petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 08/09/2015 (Annexure P/6). Admittedly, no notice was issued or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned termination order dated 15/09/2015. Petitioner has challenged the same in W.P.No.968 of 2016 at the Principal Seat and the same was disposed of vide order dated 29/01/2016 with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation under regulation 274 of the Regulations and it was further directed that the authority shall decide the representation on merits expeditiously. Petitioner had submitted representation on 22/02/2016 (Annexure P/8). The representation has been rejected by the Inspector General of Police on 26/03/2016 and communicated the same to the petitioner vide order dated 02/04/2016 (Annexure P/2). In the counter-affidavit, the impugned termination order dated 15/09/2015 (Annexure P/1) is justified on the basis of the same allegations which were addressed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11353/2015 (supra) while allowing the writ petition and set aside the order of termination dated 27/02/2015.