Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Verma vs State Of M.P. on 29 June, 2017
1
Writ Petition No.4341/2006(S)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(SB : VIVEK AGARWAL, J.)
Writ Petition No.4341/2006(S)
Narendra Singh Verma
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Shri Pratip Visoria, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Anil Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents-
State.
ORDER
(Passed on 29th June, 2017)
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 28.04.2005 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Balaghat, Range Balaghat Annexure P/1 as was communicated to him at Gwalior inasmuch as on the date of passing of the said order, the petitioner was posted at Gwalior so also the order Annexure P/9 rejecting his appeal against the order Annexure P/1.
2. Besides this, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.04.2005 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police so also the order dated 04.04.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Datia, but at the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is withdrawing his writ petition in respect of Order No.580B/05 dated 28.04.2005 Annexure P/2 and the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Datia on 04.04.2002 Annexure P/3 as they are pertaining to different cause of actions and have no direct nexus with the impugned order Annexure P/1. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for orders Annexures P/2 and P/3 with liberty to the petitioner to assail the said orders, if so 2 Writ Petition No.4341/2006(S) advised and if occasion arises in different proceedings.
3. As far as the order Annexure P/1 is concerned, it is petitioner's case that the petitioner was transferred from Datia to Dindori and there was delay in joining at Dindori, as a result of which Superintendent of Police Dindori had passed an order regularizing his period of delay in joining and inflicting penalty of censure to be recorded in his Annual Character Roll. It is petitioner's contention that once the said order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dindori as is contained in Annexure P/16 dated 25.03.2003, then there was no occasion for the superior officer to review that order and that too beyond prescribed statutory time limit of 06 months as is provided under Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. He has drawn attention of this Court to the show cause notice Annexure P/17 dated 10.06.2004 pointing out that once Superintendent of Police had passed the order of punishment of censure on 25.03.2003, then there was no option to Dy. Inspector General of Police, Balaghat to reopen the case and review the orders passed by the Superintendent of Police beyond a period of limitation of 06 months and, therefore, the show cause notice Annexure P/17 dated 10.06.2004 was incompetent and is liable to be quashed with all consequential orders of punishment namely Annexure P/1 and appellate order Annexure P/9.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the show cause notice points out that the show cause notice was at the dictates of the higher authorities namely Additional Director General of Police (Adminstration), who had held that the punishment of censure was disproportionately on 3 Writ Petition No.4341/2006(S) the lower side to the conduct of the petitioner and accordingly on the dictates of the higher authorities, the said show cause notice was issued and that notice being devoid of any application of mind, is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has mainly taken a ground in regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and submits that merely orders of punishment and appellate order were served at Gwalior, will not bring the case within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and the petitioner be relegated to avail his remedy at the Principal Seast within whose jurisdiction Balaghat and Dindori Districts will fall.
6. On merits, when he was specifically asked about the limitation prescribed to review an order, he fairly submits that the return on this aspect is silent. There is no mention in the return as to how an order of punishment already inflicting penalty on a delinquent employee could have been taken into review at the dictates of the higher authorities after a lapse of more than one year. Since the respondents' return is silent on this aspect, it is apparent that the impugned order Annexure P/1 suffers from mala fide and is liable to be quashed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Bharti v. State of MP & Others as reported in 2016 (4) MPLJ 311, wherein it has been laid down that no misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty can be alleged if the illness is supported by a medical fitness certificate issued by the competent Government doctor. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the departmental enquiry 4 Writ Petition No.4341/2006(S) proceedings and submits that the witnesses, namely, Dr. R. K. Chaturvedi and Dr. Shiv Kumar Khogar have deposed that the petitioner was under their treatment for various ailments as have been mentioned in the enquiry report attributed to prosecution witnesses no.4 and 6 and they had issued medical certificates, which were properly accepted before the enquiry officer.
7. In view of the said medical certificates and the law laid down in the case of Santosh Bharti (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the order for enhancement of punishment from censure to stoppage of one increment is arbitrary, illegal and not supported by any legal premises. Thus, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 28.04.2005 and the appellate order Annexure P/9 are quashed. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge 29/06/2017 Mehfooz/-