Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chand Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
WRIT PETITION No. 7498 of 2014
SURESH CHAND SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for
petitioner.
Shri G.S. Chauhan, learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
(Passed on this 16th day of June, 2025 )
The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution seeking following relief (s):-
"i) The petition may kindly be allowed with cost:
and
ii) The Order of the termination passed on
28/02/2000 (Annexure-P/9) and appellate order dated
30/04/2010 (Annexure-P/14) may kindly be quashed;
and
iii) The order of the termination be declared as
without jurisdiction, which is pass by res. No.3, and
also be declared the appellate order pass by res. No.4
as nonspeaking order as well as without hearing
opportunity to the petitioner; and
iv) The direction of the respondents authority be
reinstate to the petitioner as on dated of removal, as
well as all consequence benefit given as per law which
is benefit of the petitioner; and
v) The direction all retire benefit be given to the
petitioner; and
vi) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
think proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may also be granted."
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner joined
police force in the year 1973 on the post of Sub-Inspector by DIG,
Police through Direct Recruitment and he served the department for
27 years. As submitted, he was a sincere and diligent officer. When
petitioner was posted as S.I. at Police Station Naryawali District
Sagar where petitioner investigated a double-murder case and filed
charge-sheet before the competent Criminal Court at Sagar, four
persons were named as accused in the charge-sheet. After
conclusion of trial, Sessions Court, Sagar, did not find the accused
persons guilty and thus they were acquitted. However, Sessions
Judge raised doubt over the manner of investigation and
genuineness of some documents which were Memorandum, Spot
Map and Seizure Memo etc. on the ground that original documents
in the charge-sheet submitted in the Court were bit different than
that of the photocopies of the charge-sheet papers given to the
accused persons. No timing was mentioned in those photocopies.
Thus, Sessions Court directed to file a criminal case against
petitioner being Investigating Officer under Section 194 of IPC.
Thereafter, complaint was lodged against petitioner under Section
194 of IPC and after charge-sheet, trial conducted.
3. Petitioner faced the trial for offence punishable under Section
194 of IPC. Vide judgment dated 13.01.998, trial Court convicted
petitioner under Section 194 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
three years' R.I. and a fine Rs.500/- (Annexure P-5). Petitioner
challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence
before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. Appeal was partly
allowed and sentence was reduced to one year (from three years
granted by the Sessions Court), however, the fine amount was
enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. An SLP was also preferred before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court but got dismissed. Therefore, order of
conviction with jail sentence of one year and a fine of Rs.5000/-
was maintained.
4. After conviction, it appears that Inspector General of Police
(I.G.P.)-Sagar Range, passed order dated 28th of February 2000 and
terminated the services of petitioner with immediate effect.
Thereafter, appeal/representation preferred by petitioner was also
rejected vide order dated 30th of April 2010 (Annexure P-14).
Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
5. It is the submission of counsel for petitioner that no
opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner before
terminating his services from the post of Sub-Inspector. It is further
submitted that Regulation 238 (in Hindi version) contemplates that
a Police Officer can only be removed when he is convicted from the
trial Court as well as Appellate Court and gives discretion to the
Authority if the offence is not grievous or involves moral turpitude
then case can be considered other than termination. In support of
his submissions, he relied upon Hindi version of Police Regulation
238 and on the strength of judgments rendered by Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Mangilal and another Vs. Board of
Revenue, M.P. And Others, 1983 JLJ 385 (D.B.) and Chief
Municipal Officer Vs. Hindustan Copper Limited and Ors. 2018
(2) JLJ 210 (D.B.) asserted for setting aside of termination order.
Courts held in those Judgments that in case of conflict between
Hindi and English text of statue, Hindi version would prevail
because legislative version in State of M.P. is Hindi because it is the
language of the State while relying upon Article 345 and 348 of
Constitution of India. Act passed in Hindi which is an authoritative
text and legislative version therefore, it would prevail over English.
6. It is further submitted that since Hindi version of Police
Regulation 238 contemplates different exigencies than English
version therefore, sympathetic consideration ought to be made by
the authority. In absence thereof, his case is not considered in
correct perspective.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer
and submitted that after conviction being recorded, only step
required to be made was to terminate his services and no
opportunity of hearing is required. He prayed for dismissal of
petition.
8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
9. This is a case where petitioner who was a Sub-Inspector got
convicted by the trial court and consequently services were
terminated by the department. So far as opportunity of hearing is
concerned, counsel for petitioner could not make out any provision
of Police Regulation to indicate that in such matters opportunity of
hearing is required. While interpreting Rule 19 of The M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, [deals in
almost identical fact situation]. Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Lakshmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of M.P. And Anr.
2004(4) MPHT 343 2004 (4) MPHT 343 (F.B.), held that no
opportunity of hearing is required in such matters. Para 11 and 12 of
Lakshmi Narayan Hayaran (supra) are reproduced for ready
reference and convenience:-
11. We accordingly overrule the decisions of the
Division Bench in Tikaram (supra) and Sheetal Kumar
Bandi (supra), in so far as they hold that the
delinquent employee should be given a notice giving
an opportunity to put forth his views as to the penalty
proposed to be imposed.
12. The second premise in the Sheetal Kumar
Bandi (supra) that in exercise of the power of judicial
review, the Court can examine whether there was
consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances
by the disciplinary authority in imposing the penalty
and correct the penalty if it is excessive, is in
consonance with the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Challappan, Shankar Dass, Tulsiram Patel and Sunil
Kumar Sarkar (supra). If the conviction is for any
minor offence which does not involve any moral
turpitude, a punishment of removal or dismissal from
service will certainly be excessive. But where the
conviction is on the ground of corruption, as in this
case, there can be no two views that imposition of
punishment byway of dismissal is just and proper and
not excessive.
10. Therefore, no opportunity is required to be given, once an
officer held guilty and convicted by the trial Court.
11. So far as Rule 238 and its interpretation is concerned, it is apt
to reproduce Rule 238 in Hindi as under:-
238.फजदर अपरध म दण
--जब क स पल स अध र
ठर रवस दण क स फजदर अपर दषलसदध पर
ददय जव और दषलसदध अप स स भ मनय ह जव य उस
ववरद ऐस ई अप न जव त उस पदचयत र ददय जवग।
क नत उपब/ यह ह0 क यदद अपर गभ
/ र य अपमनजन न
ह तथ रवस इतन मब न ह क उस अ :पतन ह जव; त
वह महननरक ववव पर हग क वह उस द म6 बन रहन द।
Rule 238 in English version is as under:-
238. Convection in criminal offence:- When a
Police Officer has been sentenced by the trial Court to
rigorous imprisonment upon convection of a criminal
offence, he shall be dismissed from the force:
Provided that if his offence was not a serious or
disgraceful nature, and the imprisonment has not been
so prolonged as to be of it self degrading, it shall be in
the discretion of the Inspector-General to allow his
retention in the force.
While interpreting Regulation 238, Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Shiv Babu Shukla Vs. State of M.P. And
Ors., 2008 (2) MPHT 312 (D.B.) held that in absence of any stay
of judgment of conviction or when appeal is dismissed then
authority is entitled to impose the punishment of removal once
person is convicted by the trial Court.
12. In the said judgment, the ground raised by petitioner is
addressed by the Division Bench and held that Regulation 238 as
per Hindi version does not confer any discretion on the competent
authority after the conviction is affirmed in appeal but it does not
debar the authority to pass an order of punishment for removal.
Regulation 238 is per-emptory in nature for imposition of
punishment and the only discretion granted to the authority concern
is in the proviso. Relevant discussion is again reproduced to bring
clarity:-
11. At this juncture we are obliged to reproduce English
version of Regulations 238 and 240:
"238. Conviction in criminal offence.- When a
Police Officer has been sentenced by the Trial
Court to rigorous imprisonment upon conviction of
a criminal offence, he shall be dismissed from the
force:
Provided that if his offence was not of a serious or
disgraceful nature, and the imprisonment has not
been so prolonged as to be of itself degrading, it
shall be in the discretion of the Inspector General
to allow his retention in the force.
*** *** *** *** ***
240. If an appeal lies against the existence of the
convicting Court and if as a result of which an
appeal preferred by the Police Officer concerned,
his conviction is set aside and his reinstatement to
his former post appears to be called for, the
arrangement made as a result of his dismissal will
have to be reversed".
If the English version is accepted there can
be no iota of doubt that the order is justified in law.
Even if the Hindi version is accepted to be true,
correct, sound and authentic then also in our
considered opinion, the result would be the same.
Regulation 238 as per Hindi version as we have
understood, does not confer any discretion on the
Competent Authority after the conviction is
affirmed in appeal but it does not debar the
authorities to pass an order of punishment for
removal. It has to be so construed as 240 of the
Regulations deals with reinstatement of a Police
Officer on dislodging of his conviction in appeal.
The question of reinstatement on setting aside of
conviction would not have arisen if there would
have been no possibility or plausibility of removal
or dismissal. Thus, Regulation 238 is peremptory in
nature for imposition of punishment and the only
discretion granted to the authority concerned, is in
the proviso. From the language employed in
Regulation 238, it is not inherent therein that the
authority has no option but to wait till the
conviction is affirmed in appeal. The peremptory
nature or the imperative facets relates to imposition
of punishment but the said peremptory aspect for
the imperative command does not create a bar or
impediment after the initial conviction. It does not
exclusively relate to stage or state or status of the
appeal. If the stage of imposition is restricted to
take place only after confirmation of appeal it
would lead to absurdity. If such a construction is
placed on Regulations 238 and 240 then the
construction would become absolutely meaningless
and the same is not the purpose. The regulations
have to be read purposively and in a harmonious
manner. If we accept the submission of the learned
Counsel for the appellant it would be reading
Regulation 238 in total isolation. It is well settled in
law that a construction of a statute should be done
in a manner which would give effect to all its
provisions.
12. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance
and Investment Co. Ltd., the Apex Court has held as
under:
"..If a statute is looked at, in the context of its
enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker,
provided by such context, its scheme, the sections,
clauses, phrases and words may take colour and
appear different than when the statute is looked at
without the glasses provided by the context. With
these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole
and discover what each section, each clause, each
phrase and each word is meant and designed to say
as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act....
13. Similar view has been reiterated in Chairman, Indore
Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd.
and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 2458 and Sarabjit Rick Singh v.
Union of India 2008 AIR SCW 390. If the Regulation is
read in the said manner, there cannot be any shadow of
doubt that the authorities in the present case were entitled
to impose the punishment of removal.
13. In view of the above discussion and guidance given by the
Full Bench/ Division Bench of this Court from time to time (as
referred above) no case for interference is made out. So far as
contention as regards excessive punishment, it lacks in merits
because of the conduct of petitioner and charge faced by him.
Investigating Officer is meant to investigate any criminal case in
just and fair manner and if the very act of I.O. is put to doubt and
after trial conviction is recorded against him then no other
conclusion can be drawn, except termination. Therefore,
punishment is not excessive in nature in the attending facts and
circumstances of the case.
14. Resultantly, petition sans merit is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Ashish* Judge
ASHISH
CHAURASIA
2025.06.16
18:24:17
+05'30'
