Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Singh Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 2024
1 WP-15423-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 19th OF JULY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15423 of 2024
ASHISH SINGH PAWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Gulab Kali Patel, learned GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the charge sheet Annex.P/6 dated 24/04/2024, whereby the petitioner has been visited with charge sheet alleging two charges against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the charge sheet on the ground that the charge sheet alleges vague charges and does not relate to any misconduct defined under police regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat without having any fault in the matter. By referring to suspension order Annex.P/1, it is contended that initially the petitioner was placed under suspension as upon detection of the incident which related to registration of different FIRs in pursuance to crimes committed on 15/11/2023 and 10/02/2024, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
3. The petitioner challenged the suspension order before this Court in SignatureWP No.10429/2024, Not Verified wherein this Court had made a querry whether the Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:42 2 WP-15423-2024 charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner within 45 days and ultimately, it was found that no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner on completion of 45 days. The said petition was finally decided on 22/04/2024 quashing the suspension order on the said ground and further the copy of order was directed to be sent to Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department and Director General of Police for taking action against the Superintendent of Police, Betul for not issuing the charge sheet in time. It is submitted that immediately after the said order was passed by this Court on 22/04/2024 that the impugned charge sheet has been issued on 24/04/2024 by the Superintendent of Police.
4. It is contended that the impugned charge sheet suffers from malice in law because action was directed to be taken against the SP for not issuing the charge sheet and within two days of the said order, the charge sheet was issued by the Superintendent of Police. Thus, it is contended that the charge sheet suffers from malice in law and it has been issued by the Superintendent of Police only to save his own skin in view of order of this Court in WP No.10429/2024.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the allegation made in the charge sheet. As per charge No.1, it is alleged that the petitioner did not monitor the activities of known criminals within his area and due to his negligence, the incident occurred whereby the known criminal had committed the crime on 15/11/2023. Charge No.2 is to the fact that the petitioner has not carried out all his duties as police officer and did not Signaturedemonstrate Not Verified example of using his capacities honestly and with loyalty and Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:42 3 WP-15423-2024 demonstrated professional incompetence.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid does not amount to any misconduct. As the allegations do not amount to any misconduct, hence the charge sheet deserves to be quashed.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the charges are vague and also that on merits also, the petitioner had taken due action against the known criminal who committed the crime on 15/11/2023 and it has been wrongly alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner did not take proper steps to check the activities of known criminal, who committed the crime on 15/11/2023.
8. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim himself has given statements that he did not disclose the offence committed by him on 15/11/2023 out of fear of offender and it was only when the video of the incident was made viral, that he came up and made complaint of the crime committed with him.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on various judgments of this Court, wherein it has been held that if the charge sheet does not demonstrate any misconduct as defined under the Conduct Rules, the charge sheet cannot be sustained.
10. It is further contended relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed 1979(2) SCC 286 that, 'lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty would not ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence or laxity in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the Signature Not Verified developing situation but would not constitute misconduct unless the Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:42 4 WP-15423-2024 consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high'.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating in the enquiry and also that no interference in the charge sheet can be made and relies the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. K.S. Swaminathan (1996) 11 SCC 498.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13 The petition makes challenge to the charge sheet on the ground that it is actuated by malice in law because this Court had directed action against the Superintendent of Police for not issuing the charge sheet in time. It has also been argued that the charges actually do not constitute any misconduct. It was also argued that the charges are vague.
14. It is settled in law that correctness of charges at the stage of framing of charges is beyond the scope of judicial review. The Court has only to see whether statement of facts and material supplied by the department to the delinquent discloses any misconduct alleged. See Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. K.S. Swaminathan (1996) 11 SCC 498.
15. Thus, this Court refrains from making any comments on the merits of charges, which were vehemently argued by the petitioner, the charges are yet to be enquired, hence it would not be proper for this Court to assess the degree of efficiency demonstrated by the petitioner as has been argued in detail by the learned counsel for the petitioner. These facts are to be Signature Not Verified established by the petitioner during the course of enquiry if it is to be held.
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:425 WP-15423-2024 Thus, this Court refrains from considering the merits of the charges as was suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner.
16. So far as the allegation that charge sheet does not disclosed any misconduct in terms of police regulations is concerned, the reliance was placed on Clause 64 of MP Police Regulations, which relates to general conditions of service of all members of police force. The aforesaid Clause 64 relates to general condition of service and mentions in 64(2) that the member of police force shall faithfully and honestly use his best abilities to fulfill all his duties as police officers. The said clause 64 does not define the misconduct by members of police force but only defines the standard of conduct. The charge against the petitioner is that he did not faithfully and honestly utilized his best abilities to fulfill his duties as police officer. This is one of the standards of conduct expected of a member of police force. Thus the event of the petitioner being charged with not having faithfully and honestly used his best abilities in discharge of duties as police officer is vague unless it specifies some specific incident.
17. Now adverting to charge No.1, that specifies the specific incidence of misconduct, on strength of which charge No.1 can be a "charge" in true sense of the term. The said charge relates to not keeping a known criminal under check and monitoring that resulted in occurrence of the incident (on 15.11.2023).
18. There can be a specific charge of a particular negligence but as specified in imputation of the said charge No.1, the petitioner is really Signaturecharged with not "preventing" the crime and not "preventing" a situation Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:42 6 WP-15423-2024 where such criminals dared to commit such crimes. The crime that occurred was disrobing and beating of the victim inside a private house.
19. The crime related to incident dated 15.11.2023 is alleged to have occurred inside a private house of a person and not a public place. Charging a police officer with not "preventing" a crime occurring inside the house of a private person is nothing but a vague and abstract charge. There cannot be any set standard procedure of keeping a person in fear of law that he would not disrobe and assault a person inside his house. The statement of imputation mentions that if there had been more vigil by the police, then "probably" the incident might not have occurred. However, the imputation does not allege violation of any standard procedure laid down in such matters that the petitioner either violated or did not follow.
20. In the case of (1979) 2 SCC 286 (Union of India vs. J Ahmed) , the Apex Court opined as under:-
"11. .......It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the classic Signature Not Verified example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 enemy to slip through, there are other more familiar instances of 23:38:42 7 WP-15423-2024 which a railway cabinman signals in a train on the same track where there is a stationery train causing head-on collision; a nurse giving intravenous injection which ought to be given intramuscular causing instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking an instrument showing snag in engine and the aircraft crashes causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil (see Navinchandra Shakerchand Shah v. Manager, Ahmedabad Coop. Department Stores Ltd. [(1978) 19 Guj LR 108, 120] ). But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty.
13. Having cleared the ground of what would constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceeding, a look at the charges framed against the respondent would affirmatively show that the charge inter alia alleged failure to take any effective preventive measures meaning thereby error in judgment in evaluating developing situation. Similarly, failure to visit the scenes of disturbance is another failure to perform the duty in a certain manner. Charges 2 and 5 clearly indicate the shortcomings in the personal capacity or degree of efficiency of the respondent. It is alleged that respondent showed complete lack of leadership when disturbances broke out and he disclosed complete ineptitude, lack of foresight, lack of firmness and capacity to take firm decision. These are personal qualities which a man holding a post of Deputy Commissioner would be expected to possess. They may be relevant considerations on the question of retaining him in the post or for promotion, but such lack of personal quality cannot constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. In fact, Charges 2, 3 and 6 are clear surmises on account of the failure of the respondent to take effective preventive measures to arrest or to nip in the bud the ensuing disturbances. We do not take any notice of Charge 4 because even the Enquiry Officer has noted that there are number of extenuating circumstances which may exonerate the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA respondent in respect of that charge. What was styled as Charge SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 6 is the conclusion viz. because of what transpired in the 23:38:42 8 WP-15423-2024 inquiry, the Enquiry Officer was of the view that the respondent was unfit to hold any responsible position. Somehow or other, the Enquiry Officer completely failed to take note of what was alleged in Charges 2, 5 and 6 which was neither misconduct nor even negligence but conclusions about the absence or lack of personal qualities in the respondent. It would thus transpire that the allegations made against the respondent may indicate that he is not fit to hold the post of Deputy Commissioner and that if it was possible he may be reverted or he may be compulsorily retired, not by way of punishment. But when the respondent is sought to be removed as a disciplinary measure and by way of penalty, there should have been clear case of misconduct viz. such acts and omissions which would render him liable for any of the punishments set out in Rule 3 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1955. No such case has been made out."
(emphasis supplied)
21. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, this Court in Narayan Prasad Dehariya Vs. State of M.P. and Others (2010 SCC OnLine MP 656) has quashed the penalty order. In the said case, a Deputy Collector was charged with issuing licenses of cracker shops for which no space was earmarked and the shops were gutted which led to a law and order situation.
22. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanrayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held as under:-
"Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."Signature Not Verified
(emphasis supplied) Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:42 9 WP-15423-2024
23. The charge-sheet is bad in law as is infested with vagueness containing abstract allegations to establish which there cannot be any set standard so as to frame definite and specific charges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal 1970 (3) SCC 548 has held that vague and indefinite charges and failure to supply statement of allegations would render removal of Government servant void and inoperative. In a domestic enquiry, the charge must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges.
24. In the aforesaid situation as narrated above, the charges are nothing but vague, as they relate to not preventing a crime inside a private house, for which there cannot be any prescribed procedure and the charges are clearly not definite and specific, but are abstract in nature based on surmises and conjectures as held in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) which deals with similar type of charges. The statement of imputation mentions that if there had been more vigil by the police, then "probably" the incident might not have occurred. However, the imputation does not allege violation of any standard procedure laid down in such matters that the petitioner violated or neglected to adhere to. Such a charge-sheet suffering from vice of vagueness and based on mere surmises, cannot be given stamp of approval.
25. Resultantly, the impugned charge sheet stands quashed, the writ petition stands allowed.
Signature Not VerifiedSigned by: KRISHNA (VIVEK JAIN) SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:42 10 WP-15423-2024 JUDGE RS Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 28-07-2024 23:38:42