PRASANNA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 27/3/1992 on compassionate grounds. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in F.S.L., Gwalior. On 7/9/2007, a charge sheet was issued by respondent against petitioner. The charges levelled against petitioner are vague. Thereafter, petitioner submitted her explanation/written reply to the aforesaid charge sheet. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police directed that a departmental inquiry be conducted and an Inquiry Officer was appointed; however, no Presenting Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted that the entire departmental inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer himself who also acted as the Presenting Officer and cross-examined the petitioner and other witnesses. It is further submitted that the role of an Inquiry Officer is akin to that of a judge; however, in the present case, he assumed the role of a prosecutor. It is further submitted that thereafter, a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. The reply runs into 13 pages (Annexure P/10) wherein various facts and grounds were raised; however, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the same and passed a non-speaking and unreasoned order dtd. 29/5/2008, imposing a major penalty of withholding two annual increments upon petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also failed to consider the aforesaid aspects and rejected the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition and the same was also rejected.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that after taking into consideration the entire facts and material on record including the submissions made by petitioner in his representation/reply, the order dated 29/5/200817 has rightly been passed by competent authority and the penalty has been inflicted on petitioner.