Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.K. Richhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
WRIT PETITION No. 1509 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
R.K. RICHHARIYA S/O LT. SHRI B.P.
RICHHARIA, AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS, OCCUPATION: TOWN
INSPECTOR R/O CIVIL LINE
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D. K. TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH
1.
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTER (PHQ),
2.
BHOPAL. (MADHYA PRADESH)
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
SAGOUR DIVISION SAGOUR (M.P.)
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CHHATARPUR DISTT.
4.
CHHATARPUR. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 18.1.2023
Pronounced on : 19.4.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is preferred by petitioner seeking following reliefs:
(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing impugned order dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P/10) and order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P/11) passed by respondent no.3 and no.2 respectively, being illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to the departmental proceeding against the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present petition by quashing the impugned orders and direct the respondents to release 3 the salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period i.e. from 02.05.2006 to 14.07.2006.
(iv) That any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted along with the cost of this petition.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Inspector at Police Station Bijawar, district Chhatarpur. On 28.3.2007, the petitioner was suffering some medical condition and therefore he went on leave for two weeks rest after recording the same into Rojnamcha. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated vide order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure P/7) at the instance of I.G. Sagar Zone, Sagar. Petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry and tried to establish his innocence but vide order dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P/10) by I.G. Sagar he was punished with placing him at the lowest of the pay-scale of Inspector for one year with cumulative effect. He preferred the appeal before D.G. Police but the same was dismissed vide order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P/11). 4
3. Besides raising arguments on merits, petitioner raised the point that as per Regulation 228 of M.P. Police Regulation up to the rank of Inspector, Superintendent of Police alone is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and as per Regulation 232, the Superintendent of Police is competent to issue charge-sheet and to hold all departmental enquiries. The said aspect has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in detail in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav v. State of M.P. and others 2013 (3) MPLJ 508. He relied upon the said judgment and it has not been disturbed by the Apex Court also. Therefore, point involved in the case is covered by the said judgment.
4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer but, however, could not distinguish the fact except that proceedings were prior in time.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
6. This is a case where petitioner, who was a police inspector, is taking exception to the departmental proceedings. From perusal of orders dated 6.6.2007 and 22.1.2010 passed by I.G. Sagar, it appears that the proceedings were initiated contrary to M.P. Police Regulations 228 and 5
232. Therefore, proceedings were void ab initio being initiated at the instance of Inspector General of Police and not by the Superintendent of Police.
7. M. P. Police Regulations 228 and 232 read as under:
228. D.E.- When and how held.- In every case of removal, compulsory retirement from service, reduction in rank, grade or pay or withholding of increment for a period in excess of one year a formal proceeding must be recorded by the Superintendent in the prescribed form,- setting forth.
(a) The charge;
(b) The evidence on which the charge is based;
(c) The defense of the accused;
(d) The statements of his witnesses (if any);
(e) The finding of the Superintendent, with the reasons on which it is based;
(f) The Superintendent's final order or recommendation, as the case may be:6
Provided that it shall not be necessary to record a formal proceeding, if due to exigencies of service and not by reason of any misconduct or fault on his part, a police officer is transferred from a post carrying a special or specialist pay in the special Armed Force, Motor Transport or Radio Telegraphy sections to a post not carrying such pay and reduction in his pay is caused by reason of such transfer.
232. D.E.- When held by A.S.P. or Dy.S.P. :- If for any reason the Superintendent of Police cannot himself conveniently hold a departmental enquiry he may frame a charge against the accused and order an Assistant or an Inspector, or police prosecutor or company commander, to record the statements of witnesses and the accused's defence, and to return the papers to him with a report on the case. An Assistant or Deputy Superintendent in charge of a sub-division will ordinarily hold all departmental enquiries into the conduct of officers of and below the rank of Sub-Inspector serving in his sub-division. The Superintendent of Police will himself hold all departmental enquiries in which the accused is an Inspector. He will also himself hold the enquiry in any other case in which he considers such a course necessary or desirable.7
8. Therefore, on the basis of mandate of Police Regulations 228 and 232, which was later on discussed and affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), the impugned orders dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P/10) and order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P/11) are hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the competent authority to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law, if advised so.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.04.19 19:27:04 +05'30'