Shreenath Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2201 MP

                                                           1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                            WRIT PETITION No. 28304 of 2021

                                Between:-
                                SHREENATH SINGH BAGHEL S/O SUKHRAM
                                SINGH , AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                RTD.S.D.O.P. VILLAGE P.O. SAGRA, P.S.LAUR,
                                REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                                (BY SHRI AJAY SHANKAR RAIZADA, ADVOCATE)

                                AND

                      1.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME POLICE DEPTT.
                                VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.        ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                                (VIGILANCE)    POLICE    HEADQUARTERS
                                JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.        SUPERINTENDENT     OF    POLICE SINGRAULI
                                DISTT.SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.        VIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O JAGJIVANLAL
                                SINGH GAHARWAR GRAM / POST JILHEDI THANA
                                NAI GADHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.        ABHAYRAJ SINGH S/O SURYAWALI SINGH SAGRA
                                POLICE STATION LAUR TEHSIL MAUGANJ
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                                (BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER )

                              T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                            ORDER

Petitioner is challenging the chargesheet issued by the Director General of Police on the ground that though chargesheet could have been issued to him after he attained the age of superannuation in view of the provisions contained in Rule 9

(b) of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules 1966, as chargesheet was served on

the petitioner after his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 30th September, 2021.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

The second ground is that appointing authority of the petitioner is the State Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.02.23 17:21:17 IST

Government and, therefore, chargesheet could not have been issued by the Director General of Police. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 S.C.C. 351.

Learned Panel Lawyer submits that chargesheet was issued by the Director General of Police on 28/09/2021 and, therefore, that cannot be put to challenge merely because it was served on the petitioner on or after his date of

superannuation i.e. 30th September, 2021.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, it is evident that there is a difference between the disciplinary authority and the appointing authority. In the case of P.V. Srinivasa Sastry Vs. Controller and Auditor General of India A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1321, it is held that it is also not the rule that proceedings can be initiated only by the appointing authority that is --- the authority who is lower than the appointing authority but superior than the employee will be competent to do so.

In the case of Director General, E.S.I. and another Vs. T. Abdul Rajak (1996) 4 S.C.C. 708, it is held that such proceedings can be initiated by any superior authority who can be held to be a controlling authority although subordinate to the appointing authority and this would be so in the absence of specific authority.

In this regard, the judgment of M.P. High Court in the case of N.K. Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and others 2012 (1) M.P.L.J. 479 is also relevant wherein it is held that even in the absence of specific confirmation of power, it is levelled on the part of controlling authority to initiate departmental proceedings and issue the chargesheet. Therefore, the chargesheet issued by the Inspector General of Police being the controlling authority is held to be proper.

The second aspect is in regard to issue and service of chargesheet. In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C. Khurana 1993 A.I.R. 1488, it is held that a chargesheet is issued, once a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings is taken. The issue of chargesheet in the context of decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceeding means the framing of the chargesheet and taking the

necessary action to dispatch the chargesheet to an employee. It does not comprehend the further effect of service of the chargesheet on the employee.

In the case of H.C. Khurana (supra), it is further held that delay, if in service of the chargesheet on the Government servant, after it has been framed and dispatch does not have the effect of delaying initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, petitioner's reliance on a document to show that a chargesheet was received in the office of Superintendent of Police for service of the petitioner on 30/09/2021 is a sufficient proof of the fact that imputation of charges were framed and dispatched by the Director General of Police and, therefore, entry at

serial no. 948 enclosed along with Annexure P-17 too will be of no help to the petitioner.

Infact, the facts of the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) are different. In that case, the disciplinary authority was Finance Minister and disciplinary authority had not approved the chargesheet, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has shown indulgence in the matter but in the present case, facts are different. Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) will be of no help to the petitioner and in view of the law laid down in the case of H.C. Khurana (supra), since charges were framed and chargesheet was dispatched by the disciplinary authority in time, it will be not hit by Rule 9 (b) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1966.

Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy