Madhya Pradesh High Court
N.K. Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 24 February, 2014
W.P.No.2333/2014
24.2.2014
Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondents.
In terms of the direction issued by this Court on 17.2.2014, learned Govt. Advocate has placed on record the order dated 17.8.2013 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Range, Jabalpur.
The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to issuance of the fresh charge sheet Annx.P/4 by the Superintendent of Police Katni. It is contended that earlier a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 22.9.2012, which was called in question in Writ Petition No.17062/2012 (N.K. Pandey Vs. The State of M.P. and others). The said writ petition was heard along with many other writ petitions and vide order dated 9.7.2013 holding that only the Superintendent of Police was the competent authority to issue a charge sheet to the Police Officer of the rank of the petitioner, the said charge sheet was quashed. However, a liberty was granted to the respondents to issue a fresh charge sheet to the petitioner, if so advised in accordance with the provisions of law and the decisions in the writ petition was not to come in the way. The State Government preferred the writ appeal against the said order, but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In terms of the liberty granted by this Court, a charge sheet is issued to the petitioner, but again while directing the joint enquiry against the petitioner and one more Sub Inspector of Police, the law required to be taken into consideration was not considered. It is contended that the charge sheet is not issued by the respondent Superintendent of Police on his own. On the other hand, on the dictates of the Deputy Inspector General of Police,, Jabalpur, as the order has been issued in this respect on 17.8.2013 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur, the impugned charge sheet is issued. It is further contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, such an enquiry is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that in terms of the M.P. Police Regulations, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
The decision of this Court in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner categorically contemplates that only the Superintendent of Police is the competent authority to issue a charge sheet and no charge sheet can be issued by any other authority. There is no provision made under the M.P. Police Regulations for conducting a joint departmental enquiry. The joint departmental enquiry is to be conducted only under the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1966 for brevity) wherein under Rule 18, specific provisions are made in this respect. However, if the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966 are made applicable, the only requirement is that a common enquiry is to be conducted against two or more Government employees in respect of one cause of action, only with the sanction of the competent authority and the competent authority would mean the authority empowered to impose a penalty of removal or dismissal on all such delinquent employees. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police cannot impose a penalty of removal against the delinquent employee like petitioner, but the sanction is granted by the competent authority to initiate common proceedings and, therefore, it cannot be said that issuance of the charge sheet itself is bad at initial stage. The requirement of law is satisfied if sanction from the authority competent is obtained. Nothing is indicated that such a sanction is not granted.
The other aspect is that whether the charge sheet impugned is issued on the dictate of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. A perusal of order dated 17.8.2013 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur, makes it clear that only misconduct of the persons like petitioner are described in view of instructions of the State government and the law and rules. Simply it is said that the misconducts are prima facie made out from the available record and, therefore, the competent authority is to take action and to specifically get the misconduct proved against individual by holding, the detailed departmental enquiry, which is required to be conducted. For that purposes matter is sent to the Superintendent of Police to issue the necessary charge sheets after framing of charges against persons like petitioner. This cannot be said to be a dictate for issuance of the charge sheet, but it has to be treated as a sanction for the common proceedings against the two delinquent employees. The charge sheet issued by the Superintendent of Police, therefore, cannot be said to be bad in law.
The other grounds raised by the petitioner is that the enquiry is not being conducted by the Superintendent of Police, whereas enquiry is to be conducted only and only by the Superintendent of Police. Regulation 232 of M.P. Police Regulations gives power to the Superintendent of Police to make over the enquiry to any of his subordinate for the purpose of recording of evidence of witnesses and, the defence of the accused and then return the papers to the Superintendent of Police. If for the said purposes, an enquiry officer is appointed by the Superintendent of Police, it cannot be said that law is violated or the Superintendent of Police has acted beyond the jurisdiction.
The reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Vs. Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo [(2009) 7 SCC 69] is wholly misconceived as the enquiry in the said case was not a fact finding enquiry with respect to the misconduct, but in fact the matter was relating to tax evasion. The law in this respect are totally different and, therefore, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondents was violative of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Lastly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of S.N. Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others [2005(2) MPLJ 18] and has contended that looking to the aforesaid if the sanction was not granted by the competent authority to initiate a departmental enquiry jointly against the two delinquent employees, the same would be bad in law.
In view of the findings recorded herein above, the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police is to be treated as a sanction to initiate joint departmental enquiry against the petitioner. No error of law is found in the action taken by the respondents.
The petition fails and is hereby dismissed without notice to the other side.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj.