R.K. Richhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6290 MP

                                1

      IN THE       HIGH COURT           OF MADHYA
                         PRADESH

                    AT J A B A L P U R
                            BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK



               WRIT PETITION No. 1509 of 2012

BETWEEN:-
R.K. RICHHARIYA S/O LT. SHRI B.P.
RICHHARIA, AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS,    OCCUPATION:     TOWN
INSPECTOR    R/O   CIVIL   LINE
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D. K. TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
   THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
   HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH
1.
   BHAWAN     BHOPAL   (MADHYA
   PRADESH)

   DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
   POLICE HEAD QUARTER (PHQ),
2.
   BHOPAL. (MADHYA PRADESH)

   INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
   SAGOUR DIVISION SAGOUR (M.P.)
3.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)

   SUPERINTENDENT      OF     POLICE
   CHHATARPUR                  DISTT.
4.
   CHHATARPUR.              (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                                                    2


(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

Reserved on          : 18.1.2023
Pronounced on : 19.4.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                             ORDER

The present petition is preferred by petitioner seeking following

reliefs:

(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ in

the nature of certiorari by quashing impugned order dated 12.1.2010

(Annexure P/10) and order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P/11) passed by

respondent no.3 and no.2 respectively, being illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to produce the

entire records pertaining to the departmental proceeding against the

petitioner before this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present petition

by quashing the impugned orders and direct the respondents to release

the salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period i.e. from 02.05.2006

to 14.07.2006.

(iv) That any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted along with the cost

of this petition.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner

at the relevant point of time was working as Inspector at Police Station

Bijawar, district Chhatarpur. On 28.3.2007, the petitioner was suffering

some medical condition and therefore he went on leave for two weeks

rest after recording the same into Rojnamcha. Thereafter, departmental

enquiry was initiated vide order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure P/7) at the

instance of I.G. Sagar Zone, Sagar. Petitioner participated in the

departmental enquiry and tried to establish his innocence but vide order

dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P/10) by I.G. Sagar he was punished with

placing him at the lowest of the pay-scale of Inspector for one year with

cumulative effect. He preferred the appeal before D.G. Police but the

same was dismissed vide order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P/11).

3. Besides raising arguments on merits, petitioner raised the point that as

per Regulation 228 of M.P. Police Regulation up to the rank of Inspector,

Superintendent of Police alone is competent to initiate disciplinary

proceedings and as per Regulation 232, the Superintendent of Police is

competent to issue charge-sheet and to hold all departmental enquiries.

The said aspect has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in

detail in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav v. State of M.P. and others

2013 (3) MPLJ 508. He relied upon the said judgment and it has not been

disturbed by the Apex Court also. Therefore, point involved in the case is

covered by the said judgment.

4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer but, however,

could not distinguish the fact except that proceedings were prior in time.

5. Heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the

documents appended thereto.

6. This is a case where petitioner, who was a police inspector, is taking

exception to the departmental proceedings. From perusal of orders dated

6.6.2007 and 22.1.2010 passed by I.G. Sagar, it appears that the

proceedings were initiated contrary to M.P. Police Regulations 228 and

232. Therefore, proceedings were void ab initio being initiated at the

instance of Inspector General of Police and not by the Superintendent of

Police.

7. M. P. Police Regulations 228 and 232 read as under:

228. D.E.- When and how held.- In every case of removal, compulsory

retirement from service, reduction in rank, grade or pay or withholding of

increment for a period in excess of one year a formal proceeding must be

recorded by the Superintendent in the prescribed form,- setting forth.

(a) The charge;

(b) The evidence on which the charge is based;

(c) The defense of the accused;

(d) The statements of his witnesses (if any);

(e) The finding of the Superintendent, with the reasons on which it is

based;

(f) The Superintendent's final order or recommendation, as the case may

be:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to record a formal proceeding, if

due to exigencies of service and not by reason of any misconduct or fault

on his part, a police officer is transferred from a post carrying a special

or specialist pay in the special Armed Force, Motor Transport or Radio

Telegraphy sections to a post not carrying such pay and reduction in his

pay is caused by reason of such transfer.

232. D.E.- When held by A.S.P. or Dy.S.P. :- If for any reason the

Superintendent of Police cannot himself conveniently hold a

departmental enquiry he may frame a charge against the accused and

order an Assistant or an Inspector, or police prosecutor or company

commander, to record the statements of witnesses and the accused's

defence, and to return the papers to him with a report on the case. An

Assistant or Deputy Superintendent in charge of a sub-division will

ordinarily hold all departmental enquiries into the conduct of officers of

and below the rank of Sub-Inspector serving in his sub-division. The

Superintendent of Police will himself hold all departmental enquiries in

which the accused is an Inspector. He will also himself hold the enquiry

in any other case in which he considers such a course necessary or

desirable.

8. Therefore, on the basis of mandate of Police Regulations 228 and 232,

which was later on discussed and affirmed by Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), the impugned orders

dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P/10) and order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure

P/11) are hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the competent authority

to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with

law, if advised so.

9. The petition stands disposed of.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.04.19 19:27:04 +05'30'