STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/state and its officers being aggrieved by the order dated 23-11-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 1514/2005 (S) quashing the charge-sheets and directing an enquiry into the entire episode by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police are before this Court with a submission that the learned Single Judge was absolutely unjustified in quashing the charge-sheets even when the charge-sheets were making grave allegations against the respondents and by the act and conduct of the respondent, the image of the Department's Senior officers' was tarnished in the public eyes.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are that on 11-4-2005 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior issued charge-sheet to Maan Singh s/o Suraj Singh and Gajendra Singh s/o Vijay Singh and against alleging inter alia that on an enquiry it was found that the original petitioners acted with gallantry in the confrontation with Prakash Gadariya, who died in the encounter on the said date. The police department through its senior officers thought that some cash reward should be given to the Police constables and other police officers who were members of the encounter team. On 6-4-2005, to honour the said police officers who acted with gallantry, a function was organized in which the senior police officers were to award rs. 5,000/- to each of the person who was member of the encounter team. The present respondents upon call of their names, went on the stage, but refused to receive the cash prizes. This action of the original petitioners was taken to be a misconduct under Regulation 64 (4) of the Police Regulation and, therefore, a charge-sheet was issued with a clear mention that because of the refusal of the original petitioners the image of the senior officers was tarnished. Apart from that, yet another charge-sheet was issued against them that they were suspended on 6-5-2005 and despite their suspension they were not present on the duty and, as such, they committed misconduct.

(3.) THE petitioners came to the Court with a submission that the charge-sheets were outcome of the malice and, in any case, the charges levelled against the original petitioner could not be termed to be misconduct. In relation to their absence at their duty, it was submitted that when a person is placed under suspension, he is not required to report on duty every day. The petition was contested tooth and nail by the State Government and its officers, who thought that because of the misconduct exhibited by the original petitioners their image was tarnished in the public view. The learned Single Judge after placing reliance upon the judgments in the matter of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty satyanarayana, 2007 AIR SCW 607 and in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. V. K khanna and others, AIR 2001 SC 343, came to the conclusion that if the malice is writ large and the allegations made by the employee against the officers are well founded, then the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India can quash the charge-sheet. In relation to the second-charge, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the charge mentioned in the second charge-sheet cannot be said to be a misconduct because when the petitioners were under suspension, there could be no question of their regular attendance. The learned Single Judge also found that the petitioners had levelled serious allegations with regard to inclusion of names of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police and their presence in the police party, who participated in the encounter. As many as sixteen persons submitted their affidavits. The petitioners were saying that superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police were not present as members of the police team at the time of the encounter of the gadariya Dacoit Gang. The learned Single Judge found that when such serious allegations were made and the malice was writ large and prima facie there was no misconduct, issuance of the charge-sheet was bad and was to be quashed.