Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asif Ahmed vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 1059 of 2022
(ASIF AHMED Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Amit Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. G.K. Patel, Government Advocate for the respondents/ State.
Heard finally at the admission itself.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner is challenging the order dated 02.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby
the petitioner who was working on the post Constable in the State Cyber Cell,
Jabalpur has been removed from service without conducting regular
departmental inquiry taking shelter of provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by
this Court in the case of Satya Narayan Pandey and Ors. vs. State of M.P.
2004 (1) MPHT 46 wherein it has been held as under:-
"the action could be upheld but nothing has been pointed out in the Police
Regulation which empowers the Superintendent of Police to dismiss an employee without
conducting enquiry. Regulations 213, 214, 215 and 216 and 216 to 218 of the Police
Regulation prescribes various punishments that can be imposed, thereafter Regulations 220
to 223 enumerates the powers to be exercised by various authorities, procedure to be
followed for taking action is provided in Regulation 228 which contemplates that in every
case of removal compulsory retirement, reduction in rank or for imposing any other penalty,
evidence based on the charges are to be setforth, thereafter, defence of the accused is to be
obtained, statement of the witness are to be recorded and then a finding has to be recorded
by the Superintendent of Police and then only a final order can be passed and
communicated. There is nothing in the Police Regulation which provides for dismissing an
employee from service, even in emergent cases by dispensed with a departmental enquiry.
That being so, it is to be held that the procedure followed in the present case for dismissing
the petitioners from services is one which is not contemplated under the rules."
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance in the case of
Pawan Pandey vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P.No.6535/2014 wherein
similar view was involved, in which the punishment of dismissal of service
has been passed without conducting any departmental inquiry but invoking
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.01.18 17:33:38 IST
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State opposed the prayer and very fairly stated that instead of
keeping this matter pending, the impugned order may be quashed in light of
the aforesaid judgments and liberty may be granted to the respondents to
proceed in accordance with law.
Accordingly, in view of the fact that no disciplinary proceeding was
initiated before passing the impugned order of termination, the Order dated
02.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) in respect of the present petitioner is hereby set
aside.The petition stands allowed and disposed of.
However, it is made clear that respondents are free to proceed in the
matter for taking action against the petitioners for the alleged misconduct in
accordance with law.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vinay*
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.01.18 17:33:38 IST
