BABULAL DEEWAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of constable on 17/2/1981. Subsequently, after qualifying the departmental examination petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Constable on 12/5/1987 which was issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). Thereafter, at the relevant point of time, when petitioner was posted at Police Station Anandpur, Tehsil Lateri, Distrcit Vidisha, one complaint was made against petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Vidisha directed to Additional Superintendent of Police to hold fact finding inquiry/ preliminary inquiry against petitioner. Thereafter, charge sheet was issued against petitioner (Annexure P/5). Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and thereafter, Inquiry Officer has been appointed and the statement of witnesses were recorded and Inquiry Officer has found the charges proved and submitted the inquiry report before Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to petitioner. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police passed an order of dismissal against petitioner, against which petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police (I.G.), which was rejected by order dtd. 24/10/2002. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a mercy appeal before the State Government, which was partly allowed by modifying the earlier punishment and converting the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police is not the appointing authority of petitioner. The appointing authority of petitioner is the DIG, who issued the appointment order. The power to inflict a major punishment vests with the appointing authority and the Superintendent of Police has no power to issue the order of dismissal. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment/order dtd. 25/6/2025 passed in W.P. No.4739 /2008 [ Harisingh Parmar v. State of M.P. and others] wherein this Court has entertained the writ petition even after punishment has been modified in mercy appeal. He pressed into service order passed in Harisingh Parmar (supra), relevant para of which is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that vide order dtd. 10/9/2007 (Annexure P/3), the State Government, adopting a lenient view, converted the order of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. It is further submitted that as per the Schedule appended under Rules 7 and 19, under the heading "Home Department (Police)" of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the appointing authority up to the rank of Head Constable is the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police. It is, therefore, contended that the submission of the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha, had no jurisdiction to pass the order of punishment against him is not tenable. The relevant Schedule of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 regarding the appointing authority of a Head Constable is reproduced as under: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_273_LAWS(MPH)2_2026_1.jpg</IMG>