Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 24657 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
AJAY VERMA S/O LATE SHRI P.L. VERMA, AGED ABOUT
36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX CONSTABLE 546 H.NO. 12
BLOCK 6 MEDICAL COLLEGE SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAHENDRA PATERIA-ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME POLICE
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SAGAR ZONE
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAMOH DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIKRAM CHOUDHARY-PANEL LAWYER)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2 By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
19.11.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent no.4, Superintendent of
Police, Damoh whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated after
conducting the departmental enquiry. The petitioner challenged the order passed
by the Inspector General of Police, Sagar Zone Sagar on 25.1.2022 (Annexure
P-7) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed
by the Superintendent of Police was dismissed and the order of termination was
maintained. The petitioner further challenged the order passed by the Director
General of Police, Bhopal passed on 19.5.2022 (Annexure P-9) whereby the
mercy petition filed by the petitioner was challenged.
3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as
Police Constable in Police Department and his wife made a complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, Damoh on 19.7.2017 alleging that the petitioner has
solemnized second marriage with one Anjali Ahirwar during her lifetime. Upon
the said complaint, the Inspector General of Police directed to conduct an
enquiry by Gazetted Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, AJAK-2
was appointed as enquiry officer who submitted his report dated 20.11.2017
and supplementary report dated 1.12.2017 and found the charge of
solemnization of second marriage true.
4. Anjali Ahirwar also lodged a report against the petitioner at Police
station Bhatiyagar District-Damoh and upon her report, Police registered the
Crime No.106/2017 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5/6 of the POCSO
Act. The Superintendent of Police upon the enquiry report passed the order of
punishment and punished the petitioner and dismissed him from the services.
According to enquiry report, the second marriage during the lifetime of first
wife is violation of Sub Rule 22 (1) of the M.P. Civil Services Conduct Rules,
1965 as well as the same is in violation of Clause 64 (3) of the Police Regulation
and Rules and 3(1) M.P.Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965 .
5. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal in appeal
before the Inspector General of Police but the same was also dismissed on
25.1.2022 and thereafter, he preferred the mercy petition before the Director
General of Police and the same was dismissed on 19.5.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the enquiry,
it was not proved that the petitioner had married to Anjali Ahirwar and on the
contrary Anjali has lodged the report against the petitioner that the petitioner
made physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The wife of
petitioner simply stated that she came to know that petitioner has solemnized
marriage with Anjali Ahirwar in temple whereas she was not the witness of the
marriage. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the case
registered upon the report of Anjali Ahirwar, the Special Judge (POCSO Act)
Damoh has acquitted the petitioner from the offences punishable under Section
376 (2) and under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act vide judgment dated
24.4.2019 passed in S.C.No.51/2017. He further argued that the charge levelled
against the petitioner could not be proved and therefore, the enquiry report, the
dismissal order, order of appeal and order passed on mercy petition are liable
to be set aside.
7. Learned P.L. on behalf of the State has supported the order
passed by the Superintendent of Police and other authorities and argued that the
wife of the petitioner specifically stated during the enquiry that she came to
know that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with Anjali Ahirwar and
therefore, it was duly proved in the enquiry that the petitioner during the lifetime
of his first wife solemnised second marriage which is clearly violation of sub
Rule 22 (1) of the M.P. Civil Services Conduct Rule 1965. It is also argued on
behalf of the respondent/State that Anjali Ahirwar also deposed before the
enquiry officer that the petitioner had committed rape by making false promise
of marriage therefore, no illegality has been committed in dismissal of petitioner
from service.
8. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties
and after perusal of the record, it appear that the wife of the petitioner lodged a
complaint against the petitioner that he has solemnized second marriage with
Anjali Ahirwar but it is also true that the same has not been proved by any
cogent evidence. It is trite law that only allegation is not sufficient to prove the
charge. The only charge in the present matter was the commission of second
marriage by the petitioner during the lifetime of his first wife but not a single
witness deposed that the marriage was solemnized in his presence. Meaning
thereby, the same could not be proved. Even Anjali Ahirwar stated before the
enquiry officer that she executed one agreement of marriage before the notary
with petitioner and the same was signed by both of them but nowhere she stated
that she has already solemnized marriage in temple with petitioner. The fact of
second marriage could not be proved by execution of agreement of marriage.
The petitioner has already been acquitted in criminal trial initiated upon the
report of Anjali Ahirwar wherein she did not support the prosecution case. The
wife of the petitioner has also preferred an application before the Superintendent
of Police, Damoh on 1.2.2020 with a request to close the proceedings as she
does not want any action against the petitioner. A copy of the said application
is placed on record along with the rejoinder as well as the copy of the
agreement executed by petitioner and Anjali Ahirwar was also placed on record.
For the purpose of proving marriage, it is essential to prove Saptpadi otherwise
the fact of marriage cannot be accepted.
9. After examining the entire record, I am of the view that the
department has failed to prove the fact of solemnization of second marriage by
the petitioner during the lifetime of his legally wedded wife. However, the extra
marital relation with Ku. Anjali Ahirwar was proved but no charge-sheet was
issued upon the said allegation, therefore, in the absence of any charge of extra
marital relation, no action could be taken against the petitioner. The charge of
second marriage was not proved, not a single witness deposed that the
petitioner has solemnized second marriage and therefore, the enquiry report, the
order of punishment are liable to be set aside.
10. Consequently the petition is allowed. The order of dismissal
passed by the Superintendent of Police on 19.11.2021, the order passed by the
Inspector General of Police in appeal on 25.1.2022 as well as the the order of
Director General of Police on the mercy petition on 19.5.2022 are hereby set
aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of
Constable.
Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, it is made clear that the
petitioner will not be entitled for any back-wages or any monetary benefits or
any other consequential benefits of this period.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
P/-
