Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhakar Rao Decd. Thr Lrs. Smt. Nisha ... vs Superintdent Of Police on 31 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
1
W.P.No.2450 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2450 of 2005
PRABHAKAR RAO DECD. THR LRS. SMT. NISHA BODKE AND
OTHERS
Versus
SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Sethi - Senior Advocate with Shri Aayush Gupta
and Shri Harish Joshi- Advocates for L.Rs of petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
.............................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed for quashment of order dated 29.09.2000 (Annexure P-3) passed
in O.A.No.986/1991, as well as the dismissal order issued by the
respondent no.1, the appeal rejection order passed by the respondent no.2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
and the revision rejection order passed by the respondent no.3 with a
direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with his
deemed continuation in service as if he was never dismissed from services
along with consequential benefits.
2. It is not in dispute that the original petitioner Prabhakar Rao
who was deputed as Constable on 23.12.1981 has passed away during the
pendency of this petition therefore, his legal heirs wife, sons and daughter
have been brought on record as legal heirs who are prosecuting this petition.
3. The facts of the case necessary for disposal of this petition are
that the original petitioner on 30.03.1989 was on duty along with another
constable Shri Harinarayan to escort the detenues Kailash S/o Goverdhan
Lal and Lal Mohd. S/o Mohd. Iunur to the Court for their appearance. He
went inside the Court room leaving both the detenues with another
constable Harinarayan who was escorting them with him to take the next
date as the date was adjourned. In the Court premises, the detenue Lal
Mohd. started vomiting. A charge sheet was furnished to the petitioner by
Superintendent of Police stating that on 30.03.1989, after appearance in the
Court, the petitioner along with another Constable Harinarayan did not take
the detenues in the police vehicle to Bherugarh Jail and went against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
rules. It is also alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner along with
another Constable treated the detenues with liquor in a hotel while coming
back to the jail and as such the petitioner has committed misconduct and
has gone against the rules of the department.
4. The petitioner denied all the charges. A departmental enquiry
was conducted by the C.S.P Shri Bahadursingh Rajput. The statements of
witnesses were recorded. The petitioner was not given permission to engage
a counsel neither he was permitted to have assistance from any
departmental person, even though he had requested for the same. Therefore,
he could not lead his full defense which has caused him prejudice. The
charges were found established against the petitioner. A show cause notice
was issued against him which was dully replied with a request that he may
not be punished as he had not treated the detenues with liquor. Since the
detenue Lal Mohd. started vomiting in the Court premises itself, the
petitioner was not left with any option, but to take the detenue persons in
auto to the Jail as the police vehicle which had brought the detenues and the
petitioner to the Court was not available. The Superintendent of Police
discarding the reply furnished on behalf of the petitioner imposed
punishment of removal/termination of the petitioner from service against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
which the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the DIG, Ujjain Zone.
The DIG vide order dated 19.12.1989 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner
thereafter submitted a revision petition before the I.G., Police, Ujjain Zone,
but the same did not find favour. Hence, he submitted O.A.No.986/1991
before the learned State Administrative Tribunal (Annexure P-1).
5. In reply filed on behalf of the respondents the allegations made
in the petition have been vehemently refuted supporting the impugned
order. The petition has been opposed also on the ground that the petition is
hopelessly barred by limitation and no sufficient reasons have been
assigned for the delayed filing of the petition. It has also been submitted in
the reply that petitioner while on duty with other Constable Harinarayan
while taking back detenues to Bherugarh Jail used private vehicle for
treating the detenues with liquor. The detenue Lal Mohd. started vomiting at
the gate of Bherugarh Jail therefore, he was medically examined by the
incharge doctor of the Jail Mahendra Kumar Jain. It was found that the
petitioner had taken both the detenue to the hotel where they consumed
liquor. For this incident a charge sheet was given to the petitioner and
departmental enquiry was held. Sufficient evidence was found to be proved
that detenue consumed alcohol in custody of the petitioner therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 17.07.1989
(Annexure R-1) which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority
vide order dated 23.05.1990 (Annexure R-2). Against the said dismissal
order the petitioner filed O.A.No.986/1991 before the State Administrative
Tribunal. All the proceedings filed against the findings in departmental
enquiry have been dismissed. The petitioner was given full opportunity to
defend himself therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order
which has been passed taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances along with the evidence available on record.
6. The learned Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid O.A vide order
dated 29.09.2000 (Annexure P-3). A review petition under Section 22(3)(F)
of A.T.Act was filed on 28.10.2000 which was registered as
M.A.No.254/2000, but on abolition of State Administrative Tribunal the
same was transferred to this Court and was registered as MCC No.860/2003
which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2004 (Annexure P-4).
Getting knowledge of the dismissal of the petition on 14.05.2005, this writ
petition was filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned State
Administrative Tribunal has committed error on the face of the record in not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
considering that the dismissal of the petitioner is incorrect and unjust on the
ground that the petitioner treated the detenue prisoners with liquor in a hotel
which is not supported by any evidence. Learned counsel has placed
reliance on the statement of Dr.Mahendra Kumar Jain (PW-3) who has
stated that no smell of liquor was found while examining the petitioner. The
learned Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the fact that the
petitioner during his services was awarded 14 prizes for his excellent
services. Learned Tribunal has also ignored that no reasonable opportunity
of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the similarly
placed other delinquent police constables Mahima Ram, Radheshyam Vyas
and Abdul Hameed against whom similar charges were proved was let off
by withholding one increment, but the petitioner has been awarded major
punishment of removal from service which is discriminatory in nature. On
these contentions learned counsel urges for allowing the petition and
granting relief as prayed in the petition.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that it was
well established that petitioner had committed gross misconduct while
performing his official duty by entertaining the detenue Lal Mohd. with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
liquor. He was afforded full opportunity of defending himself while
conducting departmental enquiry. The order passed by the Superintendent
of Police was affirmed by the DIG as appellate authority and revision filed
against the same was also dismissed by the I.G., Police, Ujjain Zone. Even
the impugned order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal is well
reasoned order. No fault can be found with the order. On these premise,
prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. Heard and considered the rival contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. In the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner and
Harinarayan two charges were levelled which reads as under:-
^^¼1½ vkjksfi;ksa }kjk fMVsU;w cUnh dSyk'k rFkk ykyeksgEen dks
fnukad 30-03-89 dks U;k;ky; ls is'kh djkus ds ckn iqfyl
ykbZu okgu ls HkS:x<+ tsy esa nkf[ky u djkdj fu;e ds
foijhr dk;Zs djds dRkZO; foeq[krk dk ifjp; fn;kA
¼2½ rkjh[k is{kh ds ckn nksuksa gh fMVsU;w cafn;ksa dks jkLrs esa gksVy
esa 'kjkc fiykdj vR;ar gh vuq"kklughu] fuUnuh;] ,oa
vkifRrtud dnkpj.k dk izn'kZu djuk ,oa foHkkx ds fu;eksa dk
mYya?ku djukA^^
11. It is not in dispute that petitioner was on duty as police
constable while he was assigned duty to accompany the detenues to the
Court with other Constable Harinarayan. It is also proved from the record
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
that despite availability of official vehicle, the petitioner used private
vehicle to bring back the detenues to jail and in the midway took the
detenue Lal Mohd. and other to some hotel where they consumed liquor
while remaining in the custody of the petitioner. From the perusal of the
record it is apparent that in departmental enquiry full opportunity of hearing
for defending himself was given to the petitioner, but on conclusion of
departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer found both the charges proved
which were confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority.
From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Administrative
Tribunal, it is found that all the facts and circumstances have been taken
into account coupled with the fact that the petitioner was police constable
and it was not disputed that he was not on duty on the fateful day. He was
serving in a disciplined force which demands strict adherence to the rules
and procedures more than any other department. Relying upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ashok Kumar
reported in (1996) 1 SCC 302, the learned Tribunal reached to the
conclusion that no interference is called for in the order passed against the
petitioner.
12. As per the contention of the petitioner with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
discriminatory attitude adopted by the disciplinary authority in awarding
him major punishment of termination from service is concerned, is having
no force. In the case of Head Constable 917 Narmada Prasad and Constable
996 Omprakash the charges against them was that they did not take
adequate precaution while taking back accused Kundan to Central Jail,
Indore which might have given him opportunity to flee away from the
custody. From perusal of the aforesaid order it is not apparent that in that
case the detenue has actually fled away from the custody due to the
negligent attitude of the delinquents. Similarly in Annexure P-6 which
relate to delinquent Head Constable 346 Mahimaram and Constable Ashok
against whom the charges were that they have entertained accused Himmat
Singh by providing an opportunity to take food at his residence which could
have provided him opportunity to flee away from the custody. It is pertinent
to mention here that providing opportunity to have food at his residence
cannot be considered such a serious lapse as providing opportunity to the
detenue to have liquor while in custody of the delinquent police official. No
parallels can be drawn between these instances. The lapse on the part of the
petitioner in the present case taking him to a hotel for having liquor during
official duty is much more serious in nature. Therefore, this comparison of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20184
lesser punishment to the aforesaid delinquents gives no benefit to the
petitioner (now deceased) in the present case.
13. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that
no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the
impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is sans merit, fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ
