Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhay Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 6th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 20106 of 2022
BETWEEN :-
ABHAY PRATAP SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JUNG
BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STATION HOUSE OFFICER , R/O.
POLICE QUARTER ORCHA DISTRICT NIWADI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY K. AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME GOVERNMENT
OF MADHYA PRADESH MANTRALAYA
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
POLICE HEADQUARTER JAHANGIRABAD,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GWALIOR ZONE, DISTRICT- GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 9/8/2023
5:14:52 PM
2
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNA
DISTRICT - GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This writ petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE
SUJOY PAUL passed the following :
ORDER
With the consent, finally heard.
2. At the outset, heard the parties on the question of maintainability
because Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State urged
that the impugned charge sheet dated 16.07.2022 is issued by
Superintendent of Police, Guna and therefore the said charge sheet can
be called in question before Gwalior Bench of this Court only. During
the course of hearing, the parties fairly admitted that the petitioner was
posted at Niwadi and charge sheet was served on him at Niwadi. It is
not in dispute that Niwadi falls within the territorial jurisdiction of
principal seat. Thus, ill/adverse impact of charge sheet has fallen on the
petitioner at Niwadi within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In
view of Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1987 MP LJ 396
(K.P. Govil vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur
and another), the part of cause of action has arisen with the territory of
this Bench because adverse impact of charge sheet has fallen on the
petitioner at Niwadi. Thus, preliminary objection of maintainability is
overruled.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 9/8/2023
5:14:52 PM
3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dated 16.07.2022
(Annexure P/18). The singular ground of challenge is that this charge
sheet is founded upon the same fact/incident and cause of action for
which petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding pursuant
to previous charge sheet dated 01.03.2020 (Annexure P/15).
4. By taking this Court to the factual backdrop of the matter, Shri
Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
both the charge sheets, the factual background is same. The crime
number i.e. 444/2017 is same. Petitioner faced the departmental
enquiry pursuant to the previous charge sheet alongwith two other
delinquent employees. In the previous enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
opined that charges against the present petitioner were not found
proved. The Inspector General/Disciplinary Authority by order dated
06.11.2020 (Annexure P/16) accepted the Enquiry Officer's report.
5. The impugned charge sheet came as a bolt from blue to the
petitioner which is based on the same factual backdrop, incident and
crime number. Thus, second charge sheet for the same incident is bad
in law. The respondents cannot split the charges, frame new charge on
the basis of the same incident and subject the petitioner to another
enquiry. This amounts to double jeopardy. A comparative chart was
prepared to bolster the said submission.
6. Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed
the same and urged that in the previous charge sheet, the allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 9/8/2023
5:14:52 PM
were relating to 'negligence' whereas in the impugned charge sheet
the allegations are relating to 'dereliction of duty'.
7. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record.
9. Allegations of both the charge-sheets are reproduced in
juxtaposition :-
¼pktZ'khV½ fnukad 01-03-2020 ¼pktZ'khV½ fnukad 06-07-2022
fujh{kd vHk; izrki flag ijekj % Fkkuk fnukad 09-08-2017 dks Fkkuk vkjksa esa
vkjksa ds mi Ø- 444@17 /kkjk 363] iathc) mi Ø- 444@17 /kkjk 363]
366 Hkknoh esa foospd mi fujh{kd 366 Hkknoh ds Qjhnk; xtsUnz flag
lqYrku flag jkor }kjk fxjQ~rkj fd, pUnsy }kjk fnukad 03-08-2017 dks
x, lansgh thrsUnz mQZ thrw ls lk{; mldh iq=h xhrkckbZ dks thrsUnz iztkifr
ladyu gsrq dksbZ iwNrkN u dj ,oa }kjk cgyk Qqlykdj ys tkus ds lEcU/k
foospd dks leqfpr funsZ'k u nsdj esa fjiksVZ ij rRdky vijk/k dk;e u
iznh; dk;ksZ ds fuoZgu esa ?kksj dj dk;Zokgh ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh
ykijokgh iznf'kZr djukA iznf'kZr djukA
mi fujh{kd lqYrku flag jkor% Fkkuk Lk-Mh-vks-ih- jk;x<+ }kjk mi Ø-
vkjksa] ds mi Ø- 444@17 /kkjk 363] 444@17 /kkjk 363] 366 Hkknoh ds
366 Hkknoh esa lansgh thrsUnz mQZ thrw ifjos{k.k esa Fkkuk izHkkjh dks Lo;a foospuk
dks fof/k lEer ,oa Bksl lk{; ladfyr djus ds funsZ'k fn, tkus ds ckotwn
fd, fcuk fxjQ~rkj dj iznh; dk;ksZa ds Lo;a foospuk u djrs gq, muh lqYrku
fuoZgu esa ?kksj ykijokgh iznf'kZr flag jkor ls foospuk djokdj dk;Zokgh
djukA ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh iznf'kZr djukA
mi fujh{kd tkWtZ fpLikWVk% Fkkuk vkjksa]
ds mi Ø- 444@17 /kkjk 363] 366
Hkknoh esa lansgh thrsUnz mQZ thrw dks
fof/k lEer ,oa Bksl lk{; miyC/k u
gksus ds ckotwn pkyku dh dk;Zokgh
dj iznh; dk;ksZa ds fuoZgu esa ?kksj
ykijokgh iznf'kZr djukA
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 9/8/2023
5:14:52 PM
10. This is not in dispute that factual basis for issuance of first
charge- sheet dated 1.3.2020 (Annexure P-15) is the same on the
strength of which the subsequent charge-sheet dated 16.7.2022
(Annexure P-18) is issued. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner
was earlier made to face the domestic enquiry and he was exonerated
by the Enquiry Officer and his report was accepted by the Disciplinary
Authority on 06.11.2020 (Annexure P/16).
11. The only question needs determination is whether the
department was justified in somewhat changing the nature of charge,
using different language and thereby can subject the petitioner to
another disciplinary proceeding for the same incident. Putting it
differently, whether the respondents' can use linguistic engineering by
framing another set of charge based on same cause of action and
incident. Moreso when the incident was known to the department. In
the fitness of things, Department could have subjected the petitioner to
departmental enquiry on all possible allegations. The charge-sheets can
not be permitted to be issued in easy installments. The Apex Court
disapproved this kind of action in the case of (2004) 13 SCC 342
(Governor, Delhi and others Vs. HC Narinder Singh) wherein it
was held as under :-
"4. Reading of the show-cause notice suggests as if
it is in continuation of the departmental
proceedings. Lack of devotion to duty is mentioned
as the reason for the proposed action which was the
subject-matter of the earlier proceedings as well.
The second proposed action based on the same
cause of action proposing to deny promotion or
reversion is contemplated under the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 9/8/2023
5:14:52 PM
show-cause notice. Second penalty based on the
same cause of action would amount to double
jeopardy. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in law
in annulling such an action."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. The similar view was taken in (2006) 12 SCC 28 Union of
India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana by holding thus :-
"18. We agree with the learned counsel for the
respondent that if the charge which has been levelled
under the memo dated 23-12-2003 had earlier been
enquired into in a regular enquiry by a competent
authority, and if the respondent had been exonerated
on that very charge, a second enquiry would not be
maintainable."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. This Court has recently followed the ratio decidendi of said
judgments in W.P. No.10032 of 2022 (Rohini Prasad Pandey Vs.
State of M.P. and another) decided on 29.08.2023.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court when the factual matrix
of the incident was known to the department, it was open to the
department to frame a proper charge-sheet against the petitioner
inserting all possible allegations against the petitioner. The course
adopted by the respondents cannot be accepted where the petitioner
was subjected to first enquiry and when he was exonerated and such
exoneration report was accepted, the petitioner was subjected to
another enquiry based on same incident and same cause of action by
changing the language of the charge. This certainly amounts to 'double
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 9/8/2023
5:14:52 PM
jeopardy' and cannot be permitted to stand. Resultantly, the impugned
charge sheet dated 16.7.2022 (Annexure P-18) is set aside.
15. The petition is allowed.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
HK/bks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 9/8/2023
5:14:52 PM
