Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-JBP:15722
1 WP-9203-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABA LPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
WRIT PETITION No. 9203 of 2022
VIRENDRA KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Reserved on : 25/03/2025
Pronounced on : 01/04/2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court for quashing the order
dtd.23.04.2021 (Annexure P/8) passed by Additional Director General of
Police and Inspector General of Police, Shahdol Zone, Shahdol/respondent
3 and appeal order dtd.21.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by Director
General of Police/respondent 2, with the further direction to the
respondents to restore one increment to the petitioner withheld with
cumulative effect along with all consequential benefits and interest.
2. As per averments made in the petition, case of the petitioner is that
during the period of 18.03.2019 to 05.06.2019 the petitioner was posted at
Police Station Beohari, Distt. Shahdol. At that time on 27.05.2019, a
complaint was made by victim Shalini Kahar stating that one Hemraj
Kahar committed an offence with the complainant punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-JBP:15722
2 WP-9203-2022
Sections 324, 326A, 452, 352, 506 of IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act. After
receiving the complaint the petitioner sent the victim to concerned Hospital
for medical examination regarding the injuries occurred to the victim, so
that he can register the FIR under proper sections of the IPC and POCSO,
Act. The entire procedure took 7 days and thereafter the petitioner
registered an FIR on the complaint of victim, minor Shalini Kahar.
3. On 04.06.2019 an order was passed by the IG of Police, Shahdol
Zone, finding the petitioner guilty and petitioner was suspended with
immediate effect and attached to Rakshit Kendra, Shahdol. After
suspension, departmental inquiry was ordered and petitioner was served
with a charge sheet. As per charge sheet, allegation against the petitioner
was regarding delay caused by him in registration of FIR on the complaint
made by minor girl, which is violative of paragraphs 64(2), 710 and 711 of
the Police Regulations. By filing detailed reply, the petitioner denied the
charges and contended that there was no delay and there is no violation of
any law, direction or police regulation. It is contended that there was only
7 days' delay, that too due to non-receipt of MLC report timely, and FIR
was registered immediately after receipt of MLC report.
4. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report. As per
enquiry report dtd.23.06.2019 and supplementary report dtd.05.09.2019
submitted by SDO(P), Beohari, Distt. Shahdol to the IG of Police, the
petitioner was declared guilty on account of delayed registration of FIR of
minor girl, thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation to the
implicative findings contained in the enquiry report. Thereafter, without
taking defence of the petitioner into consideration, final order was passed
by respondent 3 on 23.04.2021 (Annexure P/8) on the basis of enquiry
report, inflicting punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect. Against which the petitioner preferred appeal (Annexure P/9) before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-JBP:15722
3 WP-9203-2022
the Director General of Police/respondent 2, which was rejected on
21.09.2021.
5. Learned Counsel submits that appellate order dtd.21.09.2021
(Annexure P/1) has been passed mechanically without considering material
on record as well as defence of the petitioner, which is violative of Rule 27
of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966 that provides procedure for consideration of appeal. Learned
Counsel submits that looking to the charges and evidence came on record,
it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as
levelled against him, because there is no unreasonable delay in registration
of FIR and the petitioner was waiting for final MLC report of the victim so
that he can register the FIR properly for the real offences punishable under
various sections of Indian Penal Code and POCSO, Act.
6. He submits that there is 15 days' time limit for MLC report and
investigation, prescribed by the State Govt. and petitioner has not caused
any unreasonable delay. He submits that detailed reply to the charge sheet
was submitted but nothing has been considered/discussed therein. He
submits that in absence of consideration of defence evidence, the enquiry
will be unilateral. With the aforesaid submissions he prays for allowing the
writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/State supports the
impugned orders and submits that there is no material available on record
to the effect that the petitioner took reasonable and sufficient steps to
register the FIR upon complaint made by minor girl and there being clear
and apparent dereliction of duties, the petitioner has rightly been punished.
He submits that in view of unrebutted findings of dereliction of duties, no
interference is warranted in the impugned orders.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-JBP:15722
4 WP-9203-2022
9. Out of total three charges, the petitioner has been found partly guilty
of all the three charges and in fact the petitioner has been found guilty of
not taking action immediately upon receiving complaint made by minor
girl of 13 years that too even after receipt of primary MLC report
dtd.27.05.2019 indicating 25% burning of minor.
10. In the aforesaid regard, the petitioner has tried to give explanation to
the effect that the victim was sent to MLC and final report was received on
03.06.2019, thereupon case was registered immediately, but there is no
explanation available on record as to why case was not registered upon the
complaint, that too even after availability of primary MLC report
dtd.27.05.2019 and why the petitioner was awaiting for final medical
report and why did he not take into consideration the seriousness of the
situation, where a minor girl was burnt by the named accused persons. All
this clearly suggests that the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties on
the post of Head Constable.
11. Perusal of report shows, that enquiry officer has after due
consideration of the material available on record, found that the petitioner
failed to discharge his duties on the post of Head Constable.
12. Having satisfied with the findings of Enquiry Officer, the
disciplinary authority affirmed the findings and punished the petitioner by
inflicting punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.
Upon filing appeal by the petitioner, the same has been affirmed on
21.09.2021.
13. As regards charges, found proved against the petitioner, learned
counsel submits that there is 15 days' time limit prescribed by the State
Govt. for MLC report and investigation on the application of victim and
the petitioner has not caused any deliberate and unreasonable delay. He
also submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-JBP:15722
5 WP-9203-2022
did not perform his duties efficiently. With this premise, learned Counsel
submits that disciplinary authority has also committed illegality in
accepting the enquiry report.
14. In support of submissions made by learned Counsel, no material has
been placed on record to the effect that the petitioner took immediate steps
to register the FIR. In absence of which, it cannot be said that the petitioner
performed his duties well.
15. Even otherwise, this Court has limited jurisdiction to dwell on
factual findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings, so also on the
quantum of penalty as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1995) 6
SCC 749.
16. Recently, in the case of Union of India and others vs. Dilip Paul,
reported in 2023 INSC 975, a larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has
also relied upon the said judgment of B.C. Chaturvedi and held as under :-
"42. It is well settled that when it comes to disciplinary proceedings, it is the inquiry
authority and the disciplinary authority who could be said to be the fact- finding
authority and the courts in exercise of their powers of judicial review should not sit in
appeal and reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. The scope of
judicial review of the courts is limited only to the propriety of the decision-making
process and the fairness of the inquiry procedure as held by this Court in B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. The relevant
observations are reproduced below:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to
ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the
court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public
servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was
held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied
with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the
authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be
based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of
proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding.
When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support
therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial
review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025: MPHC-JBP:15722
6 WP-9203-2022
arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal
may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent
officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation
of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or
finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding,
and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the findings recorded by
disciplinary authority and appellate authority, which are pure findings of
facts, are not found to be illegal or perverse, and are thus, not liable to be
interfered within the limited scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
18. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. However, no order as to the costs.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
