Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratnesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2017
17-05-2017 Shri P.N.Dubey, Advocate for petitioner Ratnesh Singh in Writ Petition No.9116/2016. Shri A.L.Gupta, Advocate for petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel in Writ Petition No.10315/2016. Shri Girsh Kekre, Government Advocate for the State. Both these petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notices Annexure P/1 dated 26.3.2016 and 13.6.2016 in Writ Petition No.9116/2016 & Writ Petition No.10315/2016 respectively issued on the ground of competence of the Chief Executive Officers, Jila Panchayat, Sidhi & Singrauli because their appointments were made by the State Government. It is said that the inquiries were conducted in the matter of inclusion of the name of one Vishnu Yadav in the list of Indira Awas Yojna by the State Government in view of the questioner put by one Member of Legislative Assembly. The preliminary inquiry report was sought and the final report is of 30.3.2016 wherein the names of the petitioners were not there. Thereafter, another report was obtained that is of 5.4.2016. The said report is altogether similar but in the last paragraph, the name of Ratnesh Singh has been mentioned not of Satyendra Kumar Patel. Thereafter, as per the report prepared by the Collector on 10.6.2016, the show cause notice was issued alleging the fact that the name of Vishnu Yadav was neither in the list of Janpad Panchayat, Sihawal nor in the list of District Panchayat but his name has been added by the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Project Officer by his own signature, which was not in accordance with law. It is further said that in view of the said factual aspect, the action has been proposed against him. This Court vide orders dated 31.5.2016 and 24.6.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.9116/2016 & Writ Petition No.10315/2016 respectively directed that no further action in pursuance to the impugned show cause notice shall be taken. Thereafter, the stay vacating application (I.A.No.15977/2016) was filed in Writ Petition No.10315/2016 attaching the FIR dated 27.9.2016 and also the report of the Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Sidhi indicating the fact that with effect from 28.9.2016 till 28.10.2016, petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel was in jail. The reply filed by the respondents indicates that the action has been
taken in furtherance to the report of the Collector Annexure R/1 dated 10.6.2016, which has been filed by petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel in Writ Petition No.10315/2016 attaching certain documents. On being asked by the Court that any document signed by the petitioner including the name of Vishnu Yadav has been filed for perusal of the Court to substantiate the report?
Learned Government Advocate for the State referring the signature on various lists has made an endeavour that the petitioner has signed on some of the lists but at present he is not in a position to point out whether as per the allegations levelled against him, any document is available on record in support of the said contention. Reply to the stay vacating application (I.A.No.15977/2016) has been filed by petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel vide I.A.No.1316/2017 in Writ Petition No.10315/2016 attaching various documents contending that the document Annexure P/4 is the correspondence of the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Singrauli to the office of the Advocate General wherein the Additional Chief Secretary, who is the Principal Secretary of the Department has held a meeting at Rewa on 26.9.2016. In the said meeting, the petitioner was also present alongwith other officials. It further indicates that the Additional Chief Secretary has given the instructions to take the petitioner into custody and accordingly he was sent to Jail on 28.9.2016. The FIR produced by the respondents is of 27.9.2016 lodged at 2:30 pm in Sidhi while the correspondence Annexure P/4 indicates that as per the instructions, the petitioner was sent to jail on 26.9.2016.
It is not in dispute that till 27.9.2016, no FIR has been registered against the petitioner. Petitioner has also filed certain documents attached at Page No.25 of the reply to stay vacating application dated 26.9.2016 written by the Chief Executive Officer, Sidhi to Police Station City Kotwali, Sidhi for registration of the FIR whereupon the FIR was registered on 27.9.2016 by Sidhi Police but the content of FIR indicates that it was lodged by Chandrakant Mishra. The newspaper cuttings alongwith photographs have been produced indicating the fact that the petitioner was taken into custody on 26.9.2016 itself at Rewa. It is to be noted here that when no FIR has been registered against the petitioner at Rewa on 26.9.2016 then there was no occasion to the Additional Chief Secretary to send the petitioner into custody at Rewa while attending the meeting. It is very relevant to note here that the action has been started on the basis of the question raised in the Legislative Assembly and in the report filed alongwith Writ Petition No.9116/2016 dated 30.3.2016 and 5.4.2016, both these petitioners were not found involved and the action against Nilkhand Markam, Incharge Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sidhi and Rajendra Singh Baghel, Chief Executive Officer, Sihawal was proposed. The subsequent report further indicates both these names and also the name of Ratnesh Singh, therefore, there was no reason to not to lodge the FIR against those officers also. Merely issuing an instruction of lodging the FIR in the meeting by the Additional Chief Secretary and to send the petitioner into custody is a question of consideration, which reflects from the document filed by the respondents in their stay vacating application and the reply filed by the petitioner. Petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel states that he was taken into custody in Rewa and thereafter he was sent to Sidhi where after registration of the offence, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi and was put into the jail. In this regard, inquiry is necessary because it is a matter of impartiality and unbiasness so also the action taken by the State Authorities affecting personal liberty. It is made clear here that this Court is not willing to let off any of the person, who found at guilt but at the same time the manner in which action has been started that too is required to be explained by the State Government because it started on filing stay vacating application to which the reply has been filed, however, it requires consideration as the matter pertains to the liberty of an individual without lodging any FIR on the day on which it was started.
In view of the foregoing discussion, in my considered opinion, this Court deems fit that prior to passing any order on the stay vacating application, following facts are required to be explained on an affidavit by the Inspector General of Police, Rewa himself because Rewa and Sidhi both fall within the jurisdiction of the Range Office, Rewa itself. The affidavit must contain the following facts:-
''(1). The Inspector General of Police, Rewa shall attach the footage of the place where the meeting was organized by the Additional Chief Secretary at Rewa.
2. The C.C.T.V Footage of 26.9.2016 of Police Station Civil Line, Rewa be also produced.
2. The C.C.T.V.Footage of Police Station City Kotwali, Sidhi be also filed alongwith the affidavit.
2. After perusal of those C.C.T.V.Footage, if the Inspector General of Police, Rewa is of the opinion that petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel was taken into custody without having an FIR then appropriate action be proposed against the erring officials, who have taken him into custody.
2. If the Inspector General of Police, Rewa is of the opinion that petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel was not taken into custody and he was merely taken into custody as per the FIR registered at Sidhi, the report in this regard be also submitted by him.
2. During the course of the hearing, it transpires that the FIR was registered only against petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel but the report as conducted at State level after raising the question in the Legislative Assembly indicates the involvement of the two Chief Executive Officers then why no FIR has been registered against those persons and one Ratnesh Singh whose name was found in the second list be also explained on affidavit by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sidhi, who lodged the FIR on 26.9.2016.
2. It be further explained by the Government that as per the allegation, the name of Vishnu Yadav was neither in the list of Janpad Panchayat, Sihawal nor in the list of Jila Panchayat, Sidhi and it is Satyendra Kumar Patel who sent his name, however, which is that document, that also be produced before this Court for perusal.
2. When the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sidhi has sent a report to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development admitting the guilt that due to non-availability of the sufficient time, the fault has been committed then under what circumstances, petitioners Satyendra Kumar Patel and Ratnesh Singh are at fault be also explained by additional reply.'' The explanation in this regard of the aforesaid Clause Nos.(7) & (8) be filed by the Chief Executive Officers of Jila Panchayats, Singrauli and Sidhi by filing additional reply in both these writ petitions.
As nothing is said in the reply regarding competence of the Chief Executive Officer to issue the show cause notice, therefore, the explanation regarding the competence be also given in the additional reply.
At this stage, Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10315/2016 has insisted upon to pass orders on I.A.No.3385/2017 for payment of regular salary to the petitioner but in my considered opinion, I.A.No.3385/2017 shall be considered after the said explanations are received.
Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the FIR has been lodged against petitioner Satyendra Kumar Patel by one Chandrakant Mishra, Assistant Project Oficer, Jila Panchayat, Sidhi on 27.9.2016.
The authority of Chandrakant Mishra, Assistant Project Oficer, Jila Panchayat, Sidhi of lodging the FIR be also explained by the Chief Executive Officer.
As prayed by learned Government Advocate for the State, one month time is granted to him to submit the report of the Inspector General of Police, Rewa Zone and the additional reply with personal affidavit of the Chief Executive Officers of the Jila Panchayats Singrauli and Sidhi. List on 29.6.2017 alongwith Contempt Case No.178/2017. The interim orders passed on 31.5.2016 and 24.6.2016 in Writ Petition No.9116/2016 & Writ Petition No.10315/2016 respectively shall remain in operation till next date of hearing.
Let typed copy of this order be supplied to learned Government Advocate for the State for communication and compliance. Certified copy as per rules.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE amit