Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs Home Department on 14 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
WRIT PETITION No. 6529 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL S/O BHERULAL JI DHAMAN, AGED ABOUT
36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: POORV SAHAYAK
UPNIRIKSHAK (POLICE) R/O H.NO. 133, ARIHANT
PARISAR, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ARIHANT KUMAR NAHAR - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME
DEPARTMENT, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
1.
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
2. HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
3. HEADQUARTERS, UJJAIN RANGE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, POLICE
4. HEADQUARTERS, VIGILANCE, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, RATLAM
5.
RANGE, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEEMUCH
6.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
7. SHRI PANKAJ PANDEY, NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
-2-
ADDL. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
8. C.I.D., POLICE HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANISH NAIR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT.)
Reserved on : 19.01.2023
Delivered on : 14.02.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the
order dated 30.03.2015 whereby he has been dismissed from service and
vide order dated 22.06.2022 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.
The facts of the case in short are as under:
[1] Vide order dated 30.06.1998 the petitioner was appointed as a
Constable in the year 2004, he was promoted to the post of Head
Constable and thereafter in the year 2011 he was promoted to the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector. On 06.04.2011 he was posted at Police Station
Manasa. On 09.02.2012 the petitioner received discreet information that
Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. RJ-09-GA-2982 is coming
from Rajasthan to deliver the narcotic contraband and if the vehicle is
apprehended, the contraband can be recovered in the said car.
[2] The petitioner after recording the said information in the daily
diary and proceeded with the force to the location given by the
informant at the given location the barricades was erected and after ten
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
minutes one car was found coming which was apprehended and one
person was found sitting in the driver seat of the case, upon asking he
disclosed his name as Dhanraj @ Dhannalal aged about 50 years.
Dhanraj as well as the vehicle was searched after compliance of Section
50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. A grey
colour bag was found below the driver's seat and after opening it 8 kg 40
grams of opium was found. Since the Dhanraj @ Dhannalal failed to
produce any license or permission to carry the contraband, therefore,
accused was arrested and the investigation was completed. On the basis
of the statement of Dhanraj @ Dhannalal, Mangilal Patidar has also
been added as an accused with the aid of Section 29 and the charge-
sheet was filed against Dhanraj @ Dhannalal and Mangilal Patidar
under Section 8/18, 29 of NDPS Act.
[3] The petitioner registered an FIR under Section 8/18 of the
NDPS Act at Crime No.35/2012 at police station Manasa against
Dhanraj @ Dhannalal. After completing the investigation charge-sheet
was filed before the Special Court on 03.08.2012. During the said
investigation a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police that
this petitioner has illegally taken Rs.21,00,000/- from their house . One
Omprakash S/o Dhanraj @ Dhannalal made a complaint and on the
complainant, the Additional Superintendent of Police conducted an
inquiry and submitted the report to the S.P. Neemuch that the
allegations are baseless and false.
[4] Superintendent of Police, Neemuch issued a charge-sheet dated
20.09.2014 to R.C. Sawaliya Sub-Inspector and this present petitioner
and directed them to submit a reply. A joint departmental inquiry was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
conducted and Inquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report that one or
two charges have been found proven. The petitioner submitted a reply to
the aforesaid inquiry report and vide order dated 31.10.2014, the then
S.P. has punished him by the penalty of stoppage of one increment with
one year cumulative effect.
[5] The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid punishment. The
DIG issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as well as R.C. Sawalia
as less punishment has been imposed as compared to the seriousness of
the offence. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 06.03.2015
and vide order dated 30.03.2015 the DIG imposed a punishment of
compulsory retirement to R.C. Sawalia and a penalty of dismissal to this
present petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, the
petitioner preferred an aforesaid departmental appeal as well as
approached this Court by way of this writ petition. During the pendency
of the writ petition, the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated
31.08.2015 which the petitioner has challenged by way of amendment in
this petition.
[6] The petitioner has assailed the impugned punishment given by
the revisional authority only on the ground that the revisional authority
exercised the revisional power only on the direction issued by the
Additional DGP Vigilance, Police Headquarters which is not the
intention of Regulation 270 of M.P. Police Regulation. If the higher
officer was not satisfied with the punishment then he can revise the
punishment in the exercise of power under Regulation 270 of M.P.
Police Regulation but not at the behest of the higher officer. It is further
submitted by Shri Nahar learned counsel that from the language of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
Section 270 of M.P. Police Regulation, it can be construed that the
power of review can be exercised suo-motu by the authority who is
competent to decide the appeal against the original order or appellate
order but in this case, the DIG has not passed the order in suo-motu
exercise of power to review, in fact, the DIG Ratlam initiated the
proceedings in pursuant to the dictate of respondent Additional DGP,
Vigilance and IG Ujjain.
[7] It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Additional
DGP of Vigilance is not an appellate authority and is not a superior
authority in terms of paragraph No.270 of M.P. Police Regulation hence
impugned action taken at his behest is per se illegal . In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
following judgments: [i] Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots
Assn. of India v/s Civil Aviation reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435. [ii] B.R.
Surendranath Singh v/s Department of Mines and Geology reported in
(2011) 5 SCC 449. [iii] Mahesh Singh Sikarwar v/s Union of India
and others reported in 2022 (4) JLJ 183. [iv] Mansukhlal Vithaldas
Chauhan v/s State of Gujarat reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622.
[8] Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State contended that this issue is no more res-integra, the
DIG issued a notice in the exercise of the power conferred under
paragraph No.270 of the regulation as he found that the penalty imposed
to the petitioner was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. The
procedure adopted by the revisional authority is well within the
jurisdiction and there is no illegality. Learned Government Advocate
has placed reliance on two judgments, firstly, Govind Mane v/s State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
M.P. and others reported in (2009) 3 M.P.L.J., secondly, Mahendra
Prasad Ojha v/s State of Madhya Pradesh and another in Writ Petition
No.8601/2021 decided on 05.01.2022.
Appreciations & Conclusion
[9] The facts of the case as narrated above are not in dispute. A
departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and in
pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 29.09.2014 the petitioner participated
in the departmental inquiry ,the Inquiry Officer found two charges
proved against him. Vide order dated 31.10.2014, the S.P. Neemuch
imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment which the
petitioner did not challenge the findings, as well as penaulty on merit
and the same, has attained finality. The case of the petitioner was taken
in Police HQ by the DIG (vig) and instruction was issued to take up the
matter in the exercise of power under Regulation 270 of M.P. Police
Regulation, hence a show-cause notice dated 23.02.2015 was issued by
DIG Ratlam Range to the petitioner that the punishment imposed is on a
lower side as compared to the gravity of the charges. The petitioner
submitted a reply but it was not found satisfactory and the punishment
of dismissal has been passed on 30.03.2015 and in this order, the
revisional authority has mentioned that the Additional DGP, Vigilance,
Police Headquarter, Bhopal examined the matter and DIG Ujjain
directed for taking up this matter under paragraph No.270. The
regulation under Paragraph No.270 of M.P. Police Regulation is
reproduced below:
"270. (1) Every order of punishment or exoneration, whether
original or appellate shall be liable to revision suo-motu by
any authority superior to the authority making the order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
(2) Every appellate order by a final appellate authority shall
be liable to revision by such final appellate authority on
application made in that behalf by the person
against whom the order has been passed.
Explanation :-For the purpose of this clause the expression
"final appellate authority" means the final authority
empowered to hear an appeal under Police Regulation 262.
(3) The provisions of Regulation 266k, 267, 268 and 271
shall be as nearly as may be apply to an application for
revision.
(4) The revising authority may for reason to be recorded in
writing exonerate or may remit vary of enhance the
punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry of the
taking of further evidence in the case: Provided that it shall
not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on
the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being
heard."
[10] The aforesaid provision says that every order of punishment or
exoneration whether original or appellate shall be liable to be revision
suo-motu by the authority or superior to the authority making the order.
Clause 2 also provides that every appellate order by a final Appellate
Authority shall be liable to be a revision by the such final appellate
authority. The Additional Police DGP, Vigilance is a post created in a
Police headquarters to examine the conduct of the police officer who is
not working as per the police regulations. The job of the Vigilance
Officer is to monitor the conduct of the officers whether they have
committed any misconduct and be awarded an appropriate punishment.
In such scrutiny, the case of the petitioner was taken up and found that
he was not adequately punished looking at the gravity of the misconduct
found proved hence, the DIG issued a show-cause notice to the
petitioner under paragraph No.270 of the regulation.
[11] The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
on a judgment passed by this Court in Suresh Pal Singh v/s State of
M.P. reported in ILR M.P. 2395 in which the Coordinate Bench has
considered the scope of Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulation
and held that one authority may start action under Regulation 270 of the
M.P. Police Regulation proceeded to some extent and then interest the
work to another authority. In the aforesaid case, the Additional DGP
himself set aside the punishment order of imposition of a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and then directed the IG to review the matter under
Regulation 270 hence, in such circumstances this court deprecated the
procedure adopted under Section 270 but in the present case the matter
was taken by the Vigilance and found that the punishment was on a
lower side, therefore, by way of an internal working and set up in the
police department, the competent authority initiated the proceedings
under Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulation, therefore, there is
no error in the procedure adopted by the authorities under Regulation
270 of the M.P. Police Regulation. So far as charges and findings
recorded by the authorities are not challenged and argued, as the petition
is filed only on the limited ground i.e. power and manner in which the
revisional authority exercised the power under Regulation 270 of M.P.
Police Regulation.
In view of the above discussion, Writ Petition being devoid of
substance and merit is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-02-2023
10:33:22
