SHIVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the charge sheet dated 29.1.2018 as well as the orders dated 20.2.2018 and 4.4.2018.

(2.) The petitioner was working on the post of Constable. While he was posted as Constable in Police Station Sector No.1, Pithampur, District-Dhar on 17.12.2017 when the petitioner was employed in the routine patrolling duty on Bhondiya Four-lane A.B. Road he objected the stay of Smt. Pooja w/o Rahu Gautam, near Bhondiya Pond at around 8 o' clock in the night and advised her to leave the place as the place is susceptible to commission of offence by anti- social elements. However, being annoyed by the advice given by the petitioner, she lodged a false and frivolous FIR against the petitioner on 18.12.2017. On the basis of the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.12.2017. The complainant as well as her husband in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar has given complete clean chit to the petitioner stating categorically therein that the petitioner has not done anything as stated by them in the FIR. In spite of this, the court below has proceeded with the trial. The respondent has also initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the same charges by issuing the charge sheet dated 29.1.2018. The charges, which were levelled against the petitioner in the said charge sheet are identical allegations made in the FIR. Therefore, the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 for stay of the departmental enquiry or for setting aside the departmental enquiry in view of the categorical statement of the complainant herself before the competent court of law. However, the respondent No.2 did not accede to the prayer made by the petitioner and passed the order dated 20.2.2018 and appointed the respondent No.3 as an enquiry officer. The petitioner again made a representation dated 31.3.2018 making a request for stay of the departmental enquiry. However, the respondents revoked the suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 4.4.2018 and rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for stay of the Departmental Enquiry. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. She submits that, the charges included in the departmental enquiry are identical to the allegations made in the FIR and, therefore, on the same set of facts the departmental enquiry could not have been initiated against the petitioner. She further submits that, during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has already been honourably acquitted by the competent court of law on account of warranting of evidence on 14.11.2018 and the judgment of the court below has been brought on record along with I.A.No.1407/2019. In view of the aforesaid judgment, she relied on the Regulation 241 of the Police Regulation. According to which, if the Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court, he must as a rule be reinstated. She further relied on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Harinarayan Ramratan Dubey, Khandwa vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1975 MPLJ 429 as well as the judgment passed in the case of H.R. Kaurav vs. State of M.P, 2009 2 MPLJ 189.