LAWS(MPH)-2008-1-81

ANIL SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On January 31, 2008
ANIL SONI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24-12-1993 by which he has been dismissed from service and order dated 11-3-1994 by which the appeal filed by him against the order of his dismissal has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition, are that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a constable in the Police Department, was initially subjected to an enquiry on a complaint regarding having an illicit relationship with one Shobha. After enquiry, the superintendent of Police, who was the competent authority, imposed a minor punishment of withholding of one annual increment for a period of one year vide order dated 2-2-1993. Subsequently, on the new Superintendent of Police joining the post, the order of minor penalty was cancelled by him vide order dated 21-5-1993 and a fresh charge-sheet, levelling the same charge of having an illicit relationship with Shobha and consequential charges of conduct unbecoming that of a Police officer was served upon him on 28-6-1993. After conducting a full fledged departmental enquiry, the Superintendent of police, vide the impugned order dated 24-12-1993, imposed a punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was also rejected vide order dated 11-3-1994, hence this petition.

(3.) THE issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is as to whether the superintendent of Police had the power or authority to reopen the concluded disciplinary proceeding, cancel the previous order of punishment passed by his predecessor dated 2-2-93 imposing a minor penalty and to re-initiate a fresh departmental proceeding and impose a punishment of dismissal in respect of the same charges. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no power vested in the Superintendent of Police to review or recall an earlier order of punishment or to reopen departmental proceedings which had been finally concluded and impose the extreme punishment of dismissal.