Madhya Pradesh High Court
J.P. Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
ON THE 06th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.15477 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
J.P. PATEL, S/O LATE SHRI NAND KISHORE
PATEL, AGED ADULT, WORKING AS
SENIOR TRAINING OFFICER (WELDER),
POLICE ITI, BHOPAL, R/O G/98/41, TULSI
NAGAR, BHOPAL
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH ADITYA
VEER SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P., THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
- 2 -
(BY SHRI LOKESH KUMAR JAIN, PANEL LAWYER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed primarily assailing order of punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect by order dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure P/5). Challenge is further made to appellate order dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) by which appeal against the said penalty was rejected, allegedly by a non-speaking order.
2. Though this Court was initially of the view that the matter be sent back to appellate authority for passing of speaking order, but looking to the fact that petitioner has retired and this case is pending since more than 11 years, it would be appropriate to dwell upon and decide the case on merits.
3. Petitioner while working as Incharge Superintendent, ITI, Bhopal, was issued with a charge-sheet dated 01.04.2009 vide Annexure P/2 alleging following charges:-
"vkjksi 1- iqfyl vkbZ-Vh-vkbZ- ds izHkkjh v/kh{kd dh gSfl;r ls Loa; dh gkmflax lkslk;Vh dh f'kdk;r ls lacaf/kr uLrh Jh ch-ds- frokjh] LFkkiuk fyfid ls v/;;u gsrq izkIr djuk] rFkk mls okil ugh djukA
- 3 -
2- iqfyl vkbZ-Vh-vkbZ- esa izfrfu;qfDr ls v/kh{kd ds in ij inLFk djus ds laca/k esa uLrh QkM+ dj ysfVªu 'khV esa Mky nsuk rFkk flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds 'kkldh; nLrkost Loa; ds fgr esa u"V djuk] rFkk izHkkjh v/kh{kd dh gSfl;r ls mDr uLrh ekaxh xbZ ftls is'k u djukA 3- LFkkiuk 'kk[kk ls izHkkjh dh gsfl;r ls ewy pktZ fyLV tks m-e-fu- ¼d@ys½ }kjk izekf.kr dh xbZ Fkh] xk;c djokuk rFkk mldh tkudkjh ekaxuk rFkk pktZ fyLV ds dz 57 ij ¼jkbZV½ fpUg ds LFkku ij ¼dzkWl fpUg½ yxkdj ist dz- 3 ij f'kd;r uLrh 1 ls 46 rd dzkWl fpUg yxkdj izFkd ls pktZ fyLV izLrqr djukA 4- flfoy lsok vkpj.k ds fu;e 12 ¼4½ ,ao 22 ¼d½ vuqlkj vius fgr esa 'kkldh; nLrkostksa dk nq:i;ksx djukA"
After petitioner preferred a reply denying the charges, an inquiry was held under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1966. The prosecution examined various witnesses including one Shri B.K. Tiwari, Asstt. Sub Inspector (Complaint Section) who made following statement:-
"dFku vfHk;kstu lk{kh dzekad&10 Jh ch-ds- frokjh lmfu¼v½ f'kdk;r 'kk[kk iq-eq-HkksikyA us vius dFku esa crk;k fd eS lu 2003 esa vkbZVhvkbZ esa inLFk gqvk Fkk eSus vkbZVhvkbZ esa LFkkiuk fyfid dk pktZ fnukad 28-10-2003 dks ,y ds ,l jkBkSj ls fy;k FkkA pktZ fyLV dh Nk;kizfr 1 ls yxk;r 8 iUuks esa gSA pktZ fyLV ds i`"B dzekad 3 ds l-dz- 4 ij izfrfu;qfDr ckor uLrh i`"B la[;k 1 ls 202 rd rFkk pktZ fyLV ds i`"B la[;k 5 ds l-dz- 57 ij Jh ts- ih- iVsy dh f'kdk;r uLrh i`"B la[;k 1 ls 46 rd dk banzkt gSA eq>s pktZ ysrs le; izfrfu;qfDr laca/kh QkbZy pktZ esa feyh Fkh] fdUrq ts-ih- iVsy dh f'kdk;r uLrh eq>s pktZ esa ugh feyh Fkh rFkk u gh og QkbZy izpyu esa Hkh ugh FkhA m-x-u- dY;k.k ys[kk }kjk i= fnukad 12-5-06 }kjk izfrfu;qfDr laca/kh uLrh ds ckjs esa tkudkjh pkgh x;h Fkh ftldk tcko eSus fnukad 2&6&06 } kjk Hkstk Fkk tks vfHk;kstu lk{k izn'kZ i= 12 gS ml ij , ls , rd esjs gLrk{kj gS ftldh eS iqf"V djrk gwWA eSus fnukad&29&1&05 dks LFkkiuk 'kk[kk
- 4 -
dk pktZ fyLV izn'kZ ih&8 ds vuqlkj Jhefr yrk iokj dks fn;k Fkk pktZfyLV ds l-dz- 30 ij izfrfu;qfDr laca/kh uLrh dk mYys[k gSA izn'kZ ih 8 ds lh&2&lh Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA ;gh esjk dFku gS i<k lgh gksuk ik;k x;k o gLrk{kj fd;sA"
^^ izfrijh{k.k Jh ch0ds0 frokjh ls Jh ts0ih0 iVsy ds cpko lgk;d Jh vkpk;Z }kjk iz'u&1 D;k fnukad &22 tuojh"2004 dks izfrfu;qfDr laca/kh uLrh QkMdj ysfVªu esa Mkyus ds laca/k esa vkils vkbZ,l Bkdqj v/kh{kd vkbZVhvkbZ }kjk fyf[kr esa Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k Fkk\ mRrj& esjs ,slk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha ekaxk x;k FkkA iz'u&2 izfrfu;qfDr laca/kh uLrh ds ckjs esa m0e0fu0¼dY;k.k@ys[kk½ }kjk D;k dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k Fkk \ mRrj& ugha ekaxk x;k FkkA iz'u&3 ok; ,l Bkdqj ,oa fllksfn;k us vius dFkuksa esa ;g cryk;k gS fd esjs lkFk feydj vkius izfrfu;qfDr uLrh dks QkMdj ysfVªu esa Mkyus ds laca/k esa cksyk gS bl laca/k esa vkidk D;k dguk gSA mRrj& fujk/kkj ,oa vlR; gSA iz'u&4 uLrh QkMdj ysfVax esa Mkyus dh vof/k esa v/kh{kd ds in ij dkSu inLFk Fkk \ mRrj& ml le; Jh vkbZ,l Bkdqj v/kh{kd ds in ij inLFk FksA iz'u&5 izfrfu;qfDr laca/kh uLrh u"V djus ls fdl dks ykHk fey ldrk gS \ mRrj& lcls T;knk ykHk Jh vkbZ,l Bkdqj dks gks ldrk gSA iz'u&6 esjh f'kdk;r laca/kh uLrh D;k okLro esa vkidks pktZ esa ugha feyh \ mRrj& ugha feyh vkSj u gh izpyu esa FkhA iz'u&7 D;k vkbZVhvkbZ ds deZpkfj;ksa esa eueqVko ,oa xqVokth Fkh \
- 5 -
mRrj& cgqr T;knk jgh gS vkSj laHkor% vkt Hkh gSA iz'u&8 xqVokth ds laca/k esa dkSu deZpkjh fdlds foijhr Fks bl laca/k esa D;k dqN izdk'k Mky ldrs gSa \ mRrj& ,d rjQ iVsy vksj nwljh rjQ fllksfn;k] lyeku [kku] vkbZ,l Bkdqj ,oa vU; deZpkjh x.kA iz'u&9 D;k lyeku [kku ,oa fllksfn;k }kjk rRle; esa esjs fo:) >wVh f'kdk;rsa ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks dh x;ha Fkh \ mRrj& cgqr T;knk ek=k esa >wBh ,oa fujk/kkj f'kdk;rsa dh x;h gS vkSj orZeku esa Hkh xqeuke f'kdk;rsa dh tk jgh gSaA iz'u&10 llksfn;k ,oa lyeku [kku dh rRle; es dh x;h xfrfof/k;ksa ds laca/k es D;k dqN izdk'k Mkyuk pkgsxs \ mRrj& nksuks dh xfrfof/k;ka lafnX/k gksdj foHkkx ds vuqdwy ugha dgh tk ldrh vc eq>s dqN ugha iwNuk gSA"
3.1 After conduction of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found charge No.1 and 4 to be proved but charge No.2 and 3 were found not proved for want of evidence.
3.2 Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner to respond to the implicative Inquiry Report.
3.3 After petitioner responded to the Inquiry Report (Annexure P/8), the disciplinary authority by impugned order dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure P/5) based on the implicative finding rendered as regards charge No.1 and 2, inflicted penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner unsuccessfully
- 6 -
preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure P/1).
4. Learned senior counsel Shri K.C. Ghildiyal referring to the statement of prime management witness Shri B.K. Tiwari, submits that the said witness has no where stated that when and how the file pertaining to complaint against the Housing Society was taken from him by the petitioner. It is urged that in absence of any such material/evidence on record, the respondents have wrongly relied upon the statement of the said witness B.K. Tiwari recorded during preliminary inquiry by ignoring the exculpatory deposition of the said witness in the inquiry.
5. On the other hand, Shri Lokesh Kumar Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State by referring to the Inquiry Report and the deposition of said witness Shri Tiwari, submits that Charge No.1 stood proved on the basis of preponderance of probability.
6. After having considered the submissions of learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that a bare perusal of the deposition of Shri B.K. Tiwari including the cross-examination, it is evident that the said witness has stated that while taking over charge of Complaint Section, he has not received any complaint file as regards the petitioner. However, what is noteworthy is that neither the examination- in-chief nor the cross-examination of this witness establishes that petitioner had taken the file of complaint from him and therefore, the
- 7 -
implicative finding as regards charge No.1 rendered by the Inquiry Officer and relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority appears to be perverse.
7. Apart from Charge No.1, Charge No.4 has also been found proved. Pertinently, Charge No.4 is consequential to Charge No.1 and thus cannot stand on it's own. Once Charge No.1 is found not proved, Charge No.4 also falls.
8. Charge No.1 on the basis of material and evidence on record was not proved and yet the disciplinary authority returned a finding of guilt.
9. The impugned order of penalty is, therefore, perverse. Accordingly, the impugned order of penalty Annexure P/5 as well as the appellate order Annexure P/1 stand quashed. The petitioner stands exonerated.
10. Consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner including consequential retiral benefits within a period of four month.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE YS Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA Date: 2023.02.08 11:39:05 +05'30'