RAM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is working in the police department in the State of Madhya Padesh. Initially, petitioner filed this petition before the State Administrative Tribunal and on abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th November, 1997 (Annexure A/13) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior by which he has been reverted from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable and the order dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gwalior (Annexure A/14) by which his appeal has been dismissed. It the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable and , by virtue of his excellent service record, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable vide order dated 16th November, 1996.

(3.) The petitioner while he was posted at the Police Station, Dabra on the directions of S.D.M., he accompanied one Shri Harkishore to his village Barotha. While, the petitioner was accompanying Harkishore, some miscreants assaulted him and he succumbed to the injuries. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the S.D.O.P., Dabra and the report was submitted on 12th March, 1997. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22nd March, 1997. It was alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner has shown dereliction of the duties by way of not protecting one Harkishore on 16th November, 1996. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner directed for departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer,conducted the enquiry and examined large number of witnesses and finally submitted enquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. The Superintendent of Police, Gwalior has issued a notice to the petitioner on 12th November, 1997 (Annexure P/11) along with the enquiry report and the petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice and denied the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Superintendent of Police holding guilt of the petitioner proved inflicted the punishment of reversion from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable vide order dated 29th November, 1997. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gwalior and the same was rejected vide order dated 5th February, 1998 (Annexure A/14). The petitioner in this petition has assailed the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority on various grounds. The first ground raised was that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and therefore, the entire action of issuing charge sheet and reversion of the petitioner from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable is unsustainable. The second ground urged by the petitioner was that various other employees were also charged along with him, therefore, the competent authority should have passed an order under rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the" CCA Rules of 1966) for holding a joint enquiry and as the same was not done, the entire enquiry proceeding against the petitioner is vitiated. It was further contended by the petitioner that the Enquiry Offieer during the course of enquiry has acted as presenting officer and has examined and cross-examined the petitioner whereby acted as prosecutor, therefore, the entire enquiry stands vitiated. Besides the aforesaid grounds, it has also been alleged by the petitioner that the orders had been been passed by the competent authority without affording proper opportunity of hearing and without considering the evidence on record and the defence deposed during the enquiry by the petitioner. The petitioner has thus prayed for quashing the order of reversion passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing his appeal.