Madhya Pradesh High Court
V.K. Singh vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 14 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)MPLJ160
ORDER Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
1. The petitioner is a Journalist and has preferred this petition in Public Interest, with the allegation that in the intervening night of 10th and 11th of November, 1996, one Raghuveer Singh Jaat, a Defence Security Personnel, after causing injuries to his colleagues Teja Singh and Veer Bahadur Sahai, looted the defence armoury consisting of 280 live cartridges and 4 sten carbines and managed to escape from Gwalior. Injured Teja Singh died; whereas, Guard Veer Bahadur Singh could survive. On the report of the incident, the case under sections 302, 307 and 394 of Indian Penal Code was registered at University Police Station, Gwalior.
2. However, the offender Raghuveer Singh was apprehended by Jind Police of Haryana on the next day, under section 25/27 of the Arms Act. On the information received at Gwalior, a police-party was deputed to bring the said offender Raghuveer Singh from Jind to Gwalior. Intervenor Mangal Singh, C. S. P., led the police-party. The Police-party consisted of 2 Deputy Superintendent of Police, 1 Sub-Inspector, 3 Head Constables and 7 Constables. Intervener Mangal Singh was the City Superintendent of Police at the relevant time. The Police-party took the custody of accused Raghuveer Singh Jaat from Haryana Police, and after taking the journey remand from the Court, the party left for Gwalior with the accused. Accused Raghuveer Singh Jaat, on way, managed to take possession of 4 sten carbines along with 280 live cartridges, which were recovered from him, and he managed his escape, when the Police-party had stopped at Naresh Dhaba on Delhi-Bombay Highway for taking dinner. A report of this incident was lodged with Police Palwal (Haryana) under section 224 of Indian Penal Code.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that in such a serious incident, which clearly demonstrated the commission of offences under sections 128, 129 and 130 of Indian Penal Code by the Police-party, no action is being taken against anyone for the offences punishable under the above sections.
4. It is submitted that an enquiry was made into the negligence on the part of Police-party for violating Regulations 469 and 470 of the M. P. Police Regulations. It is submitted by the petitioner that although 9 members of the Police Escort Party were suspended by the Superintendent of Police-respondent No. 3, but no action was taken against the remaining members, and the conduct of the respondents shows that the State Government is interested in protecting and safeguarding the interest of some persons selectively, while some of the subordinate officials have been suspended.
5. It is submitted by the State that the action was taken against the erring officials and charge-sheet was also issued to the Incharge of the Police-party, i.e., intervener Mangal Singh, C.S.P. The punishing authority, later on, considered the facts and circumstances and, while expressing its gross displeasure, the charge-sheet has been consigned to record.
6. Shri Arun Mishra, Advocate, appearing for the intervener has submitted that the petition is not maintainable in this Court and the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by this Court. It is also contended that the Director General of Police, on the consideration of the facts and circumstances, while expressing the gross displeasure, has directed the charge-sheet to be consigned to record. It is also submitted by Shri Mishra that the intervener and the other members of the Police-party are in the State Government's service, and therefore, the petitioner could file the petition only before the State Administrative Tribunal. The order of Director General of Police dated 2-4-1997 has been filed on record as Annexure R/4-3.
7. It is settled principle of law that the punishment has to commensurate with the seriousness and gravity of the charge and be not merely an eye wash.
8. So far as the contention advanced by Shri Mishra against the invoking of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, Article 226 confers very wide powers on every High Court to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority, including the Government in appropriate cases. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary. It cannot be incapsulated and confined in terminological and technical formalities so as to limit the plentitude of the jurisdiction nor it can be cribbed and confined. It must rush in, to cure injustice. Writ is not, nor has ever been a narrow formalistic or a static remedy. Its scope has grown to achieve its purpose, to protect the public against the wrong act or the action or order passed arbitrarily, in absence of fair play resulting in discrimination, or against inaction, in utter neglect of public duty, by the usurpers of public offices. This Court has been vested with the powers and jurisdiction to examine the given cases and, if required, to direct the authorities or the Tribunals to act according to law. Whenever the violation of any rule or the law is found by the Court, the suitable directions are issued. The authorities discharging the public functions have to act reasonably and in accordance with law and cannot be permitted to act unreasonably and arbitrarily. In a democracy, every citizen has a right to watch the actions of such public authorities. The accountability of the authorities is to be maintained in order to inspire faith and confidence in public, in the administration and in the rule of law. The contention advanced by the intervener is, therefore, misconceived. Petitioner has highlighted the matter before this Court in public interest.
9. From the order of Director General of Police, Annexure R/4-3 dated 3-4-1997, it is not reflected that respondent-authority had taken into consideration all the relevant, papers available on record. The charge-sheet was issued after the preliminary enquiry, the report of which has been filed on record as Annexure R/1, wherein the negligence of the intervener, Shri Mangal Singh was found. The order (Annexure R/4-3) does not disclose the application of mind by the authority in dropping the matter. As such, while expressing our displeasure and quashing the order (Annexure R/4-3), we direct that concerned authority-respondent No. 2 shall pass a fresh order assigning reasons, after taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances and the material on record.
With the above direction, the petition is finally disposed of.