Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Kishan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2018
1 W.P. No. 4214/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE MS.VANDANA KASREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4214/2012
Ram Kishan Yadav
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni, learned counsel for the
intervener.
Shri Divesh Jain, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
ORDER
(20.06.2018) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 25.02.2012 passed by respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioner is working on the post of ASI in the respondent establishment and was posted at Shahdol. A false complaint was made against him and other employees 2 W.P. No. 4214/2012 regarding taking of bribe from one warrantee Dil Bahar Singh. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued on 10.09.2011 wherein three charges were framed against him i.e. obtaining Rs.200/- bribe from Dil Bahar Singh negligence towards duty and violation of para 64(10) of Police Regulation. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. During the enquiry, the petitioner demanded copy of the complaint, however, the same was not given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant Dil Bahar Singh given an affidavit and denying that any bribe has been taken by the petitioner. He also denied that he had ever made any complaint of bribe against the petitioner.
3. During the pendency of the said enquiry, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector vide order dated 19.10.2011. But, immediately the said promotion was cancelled due to the pendency of departmental enquiry. In the said departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges and minor 3 W.P. No. 4214/2012 punishment of Censure was awarded on him on the ground of negligence vide order dated 17.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the DIG Shahdol, which is still pending for consideration. Thereafter, all of a sudden, respondent No. 5 has once again issued fresh charge sheet on the same charges adding the extra charge of ruining the police image. Being aggrieved by the said charge sheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in re-initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for the same charges for which he has already been exonerated is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the impugned order has been issued with malafide intention. He further submits that the charge sheet has been issued to deprived the petitioner from getting the promotion. He further submits that the appeal against the order of Censure has already been preferred before the DIG and without deciding the said appeal, a fresh charge sheet has been issued. In such 4 W.P. No. 4214/2012 circumstances, he submits that the fresh charge sheet deserves to be set aside and petition be allowed.
5. The respondents have filed their reply and in the said reply, the respondents have stated that while serving in the Police Station Dhanpuri, District Shahdol, the petitioner and two others have served a common charge sheet dated 10.09.2011 for the delinquencies committed by them during the course when they performing their assigned duties of arrest of one Dil Bahar Singh on 22.02.2011. The petitioner filed his reply on 20.10.2011 thereby denying all the charges leveled against him. After taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner a lenient view was taken and thereby a punishment of Censure was awarded on him. The said order dated 17.11.2011 was passed without obtaining permission and, therefore, the same was quashed by the Inspector General of Police, Shahdol for deciding the same in accordance with the provisions of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. After 5 W.P. No. 4214/2012 quashing of the order dated 17.11.2011, a letter was issued by the Inspector General of Police, Shahdol directed the DIG, Shahdol Range to initiate the fresh charge sheet for common proceedings under Rule 10, 12 and 19 of the Rules, 1966. In compliance of this order the DIG, Shahdol directed the SP to obtain permission and initiate fresh common departmental enquiry.
6. One Ajay Kumar Shukla has filed an application for intervention stating that due to the interim order passed by this Court, the case of the intervener has not been considered by the respondents. In such circumstances, he submits that the intervener are necessary party to the said petition.
7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the said reply refuting the allegations made in the same.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was working on the post of ASI in the respondent establishment While he was 6 W.P. No. 4214/2012 posted at Shahdol, a false complaint has been made against him that he and other employees has taken a bribe of Rs.200/- from one Dil Bahar Singh. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge sheet denying the allegations made therein. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the inquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner from all the charges and he was punished with the punishment of Censure on the ground of negligence. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, the said appeal was pending consideration. Thereafter all of a sudden, the respondents have issued a fresh charge sheet to the petitioner on 25.02.2012. Being aggrieved by this charge sheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
9. The Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides for the action on the inquiry report and as per the said section if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the 7 W.P. No. 4214/2012 findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement, it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to communicate the tentative reason to the employees and after giving opportunity of hearing to the employees a fresh enquiry has to be ordered.
10. In the present case, no such procedure has been followed by the respondents and straight away, the second charge sheet was issued to the petitioner which is violative of principles of natural justice.
11. This Court in the case of B.S. Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2008 (1) JLJ 291 in para 12 has held as under:-
"12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, even though rule 15(2) of MPCCA Rules, 1966 is silent about giving of opportunity to the delinquent employee but in case the Inquiry Officer held the employee not guilty of any or all the charges and the disciplinary authority is disagreeing 8 W.P. No. 4214/2012 with the findings of Inquiry Officer, it is the requirement of the principles of natural justice for the disciplinary authority to communicate the delinquent employee the tentative reason for disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer. The principles of natural justice will have to be read into rule 15 (2) of MPCCA Rules, 1966. In the present case the disciplinary authority having not communicated to the petitioner the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the impugned order of the disciplinary authority being in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed and consequently the order of the appellate authority is also liable to be quashed."
12. In the present case, no notice was issued by the disciplinary authority and straight away second charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by adding one more charge. Thus, this act of the respondents is arbitrary and 9 W.P. No. 4214/2012 violative of principles of natural justice.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 in para 26 has held as under:-
"26. In our opinion, having accepted the explanations and having communicated the same to the appellant, the High Court could not have proceeded to pass the order of initiating departmental proceedings and reverting the appellant from the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate to the post of Munsif. On general principles, there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct and that is also what the rules usually provide. If, for some technical or other good ground, procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second enquiry cannot be initiated. Therefore, when a completed enquiry proceedings is set 10 W.P. No. 4214/2012 aside by a competent forum on a technical or on the ground of procedural infirmity, fresh proceedings on the same charges is permissible."
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned charge sheet dated 25.02.2012 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to take action against the petitioner after giving him proper opportunity of hearing.
(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar) Judge ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2018.06.20 22:26:12 -07'00'