Devendra Singh Sirolia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4166 MP

                                      1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT GWALIOR
                                WA No. 552 of 2020
                (DEVENDRA SINGH SIROLIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 25-03-2022
      Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.

Appellant; a SDOP, is before this Court taking exception to the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 passed in W.P No.7996/2014, inter-alia, contending that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave illegality while dismissing the writ

petition as neither disciplinary authority nor the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant was not at fault in any manner whatsoever in the matter of investigation particularly for sending the requisite seized articles for FSL examination. Hence imposition penalty of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect is wholly unwarranted.

Per contra, Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General on advance notice submits that the impugned order of punishment dated 22.08.2014 imposing penalty of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect was an appealable order, but no appeal was preferred as provided for under Rule 23 of

the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The appellant was issued show cause notice and afforded opportunity to file reply. After submission of reply the report was also procured point-wise from the Inspector General of Police. Thereafter upon detailed examination of the material placed on record, it has been found that petitioner committed a misconduct tantamounts to dereliction of duties with motive in the matter of conducting investigation and appellant was found to have not send the seized items for FSL report despite having prepared two drafts/letters.

The learned Single Judge upon consideration of the averments made in writ petition and counter affidavit as well as rejoinder has reached to the conclusion that the appellant deliberately avoided sending the seized material for FSL examination. Relevant portion thereof is quoted below:-

"From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner was handed over the investigation of Crime No.181/2005 on

01.10.2006. At the time of handing over, the investigation of the aforesaid crime number to the petitioner the charge sheet was not filed before the learned trial Court. The investigation was pending. A.S.I. has issued a letter to the petitioner for sending the visera. The letter was sent to the petitioner by ASI on 24.11.2006 requiring his signature for sending the visera for chemical examination but the same was not signed by the petitioner and was kept pending and the petitioner has filed challan on 09.11.2006 without obtaining the F.S.L. report, on the basis of which, the benefit of doubt was extended by the learned trial Court to the four accused persons and they were acquitted. It is a case of offence under Section 304-B, 498-A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, wherein the death of wife has taken place under suspicious circumstances. The provisions and procedures prescribed under Section 506 of Police Regulation was required to be followed."

Learned counsel for the appellant tried to insist upon this Court that seized material was sent for FSL examination referring to Annexure P-7. On a pointed query, learned counsel is at loss to state that there is no document on record to suggest that the seized items were sent by him for FSL examination. It is pertinent to mention that the allegation against the appellant was that despite two drafts letters being sent to him for signatures to send the seized materials for FSL examination, he chose not to sign and send the seized items for FSL examination, therefore, the nature of misconduct is a deliberate avoidance on the part of the appellant as Investigating Officer, with ulterior motive culminated into polluted investigation. Under these circumstances, even if the seized material was sent for FSL examination at a later stage that by itself shall not absolve the appellant of the misconduct committed by him by inaction as well elaborated by the Inspector General of Police in his comments furnished in response to the reply submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice and well discussed in the impugned judgment.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that learned Single Judge upon appreciation of contentions advanced by either side has passed an impeccable order not warranting interference in intra court appeal.

Accordingly, the writ appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

     (ROHIT ARYA)                                            (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
        JUDGE                                                         JUDGE

neetu
NEETU
SHASHANK
2022.03.28
13:18:39
+05'30'