Naval Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15873 MP

                                                          1
                          IN    THE       HIGH      COURT OF MADHYA                     PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                             ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 20964 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          NAVAL ARYA S/O LATE SHRI S.R. ARYA, AGED ABOUT
                          52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: INSPECTOR POLICE LINE
                          SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
                                MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPA (M.P.)L
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
                                HEAD QUARTER S BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
                                POLICE     (ADMINISTRATION)    POLICE
                                HEAD QUARTER S BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TIKAMGARH
                                DISTRICT   TIKAMGARH    (M.P.)  (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PRAMOD PANDEY, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned charge-sheet

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 12/6/2022 11:09:02 AM

contained in Annexure-P/1, has been issued against the petitioner, without even ascertaining the petitioner's role as regards the alleged charges.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that in a criminal case where the accused persons were being prosecuted and as the prosecution agency failed to produce the seized articles before the Court, resultantly, the accused persons were acquitted by the Court and the Court while passing the judgment of acquittal, observed that on account of lapses by police officials, the case of the prosecution could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and resultantaly the accused were acquitted.

3. Thus, the trial Court referred the matter to the Superintendent of

Police to take appropriate action against the concerned officers/employees. Pursuant to the judgment passed by the trial Court, respondents have issued the impugned charge-sheet to the petitioner on the ground that the present petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali District Tikamgarh from 14-11-2014 to 01-03-2015. Therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner as well, to produce the seized articles before Court, where trial was going on.

4. Learned counsel contends that the charge-sheet has been issued in a blanket manner and all the persons, who were posted during q prolong period commencing from 2009 till 2015 in the concerned Police Station, are being subjected to disciplinary action.

5. It is contended by petitioner that enquiry report was first submitted, which is contained in Annexure-P/5, in which it was concluded that J.P. Thakur, the then Station House Officer (SHO), K.K. Verma, SHO; Shri K.C. Pali, Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, SHO; Shri Naval Dwivedi (present petitioner); Jaishankar, Head Constable; and Head Constable Uma Prasad Latoriya, are Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 12/6/2022 11:09:02 AM

guilty of negligence.

6. On the basis of the said enquiry report, charge-sheet has been issued against the present petitioner; Shri J.P. and Sanjay Dwivedi. So far as the other employees whose named find mention in the Annexure-P/5, no charge sheet been issued.

7. Thus, learned counsel while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and others vs. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286, submits that thhe misconduct has to be intentional and, mere innocent mistakes and errors, do not constitute any such misconduct. Even the negligible mistakes or error should be of such a gravity that the same would result in irreparable loss and damage.

8. In the present case, the short tenure of the petitioner with the Police Station, Kotwali District Tikamgarh, cannot be brought within the ambit of questionable conduct. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for State submits that, in the present case, the trial Court rightly concluded in paras 30 and 31 of the judgment that only on account of lapses by the officers/employees of the Police Station, the accused persons were acquitted. There was gross negligence on the part of the officers and employees of the prosecution agency and the trial Court rightly

directed the Superintendent of Police to take appropriate action against all concerned.

10. It is further contended by learned counsel, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted which is contained in Annexure-P/5. As per Annexure- P/5, action against all concerned is being taken. It is contended by learned

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 12/6/2022 11:09:02 AM

counsel for respondents that in the charge-sheet it is clearly mentioned that action against other delinquents, is also being taken by respondents. Therefore, submits that it is not a case, where the petitioner can allege discrimination. Thus, submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. Heard rival submissions raised at the Bar and perused records.

12. A perusal of the impugned charge-sheet contained in Annexure-P/1, reveals that charge against the petitioner is to the effect that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Tikamgarh from 14-11-2014 to 01-03-2015. During petitioner's tenure, in respect of an offence committed vide Crime No.291/2009 registered under sections 467, 468, 420 and 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, certain articles/documents were seized, which were recorded in "Mall Register" which is maintained in the Police Station at Sr. No.130, dated 26-5- 2009.

13. Challan in the said case was filed in the Court on 6-12-2010, vide Case No.2558/2010. As the said articles were recorded in the said list of the register and the said articles were being forwarded as pending in the monthly information. As the challan had already been filed in the Court, the said seized articles were required to be deposited in the Court. The petitioner, despite being posted in the Police Station, during his posting did not deposit the said articles with the Court.

14. Upon taking into consideration the charge-sheet, at this stage, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be scrutinized as the same requires enquiry, and it cannot be said that the alleged conduct would not amount to misconduct or merely an innocent mistake or negligence, involving no irreparable consequences.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 12/6/2022 11:09:02 AM

15. The said aspect of the matter is to be dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority in disciplinary proceedings. Undoubtedly, issuance of charge-sheet is an offshoot of the directions issued by the Trial Court, as contained in para 31 of the judgement, dated 6-02-2016 (Annexure-P/4), no interference at this stage is warranted.

16. Accordingly, the present petition, being sans substratum, stands dismissed. No costs.

MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE ac

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 12/6/2022 11:09:02 AM