ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) v. PRADESH)

Judgment

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL INDORE (GRAMIN) RANGE, INDORE DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: O R D E R Impugned order: The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2022, Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 07-08-2023 10:01:07 -2- whereby the Deputy Inspector General, Rural Range, Indore has remanded Departmental Enquiry No.4/2019 at the stage of prosecution evidence with further direction to appoint Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer as per the Circular dated 13.04.2015. Petitioner’s case: A joint charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and seven Head

02. Constables and Constables in respect of the incident that took place on 09/10.08.2019 in Police Station – Nanpur where the petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector. In respect of Crime No.243/2019, certain accused persons were arrested, brought to the police station, and assaulted by stick by all the delinquent. As per the charges in the Charge-sheet firstly the procedure prescribed under 41-b & 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was not followed by the petitioner , secondly the Juvenile – Ritesh was not sent to the Juvenile Justice Board by the petitioner . The Superintendent of Police, Alirajpur did not find their reply satisfactory, therefore, appointed Smt. Seema Alava, the then Superintendent of Police, Alirajpur as the Enquiry Officer and one Shri Purushottam Vishnoi as Presenting Officer.

03. During pendency of the enquiry, Smt. Seema Alava was transferred, therefore, Shri Bittu Sehgal was appointed as Enquiry Officer, thereafter, Shri Chetan Singh Baghel was appointed as Presenting Officer. Thereafter, Shri Bittu Sehgal was also transferred and Shri Aditya Pratap Singh Thakur, Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted the report on

11.07.2022 to the Superintendent of Police, Alirajpur who found irregularities in the Departmental Enquiry on eight points and sent a Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 07-08-2023 10:01:07 -3- report to the Office of Deputy Inspector General of Police. The DIG has upheld these 8 irregularities and remanded the matter back to the S.P., Alirajpur with direction to appoint a new Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer in light of the Circular dated 13.04.2015 &

01.10.2010 for completion of the process. Hence, the present writ petition is before this Court.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an enquiry has been held and completed, therefore, the impugned order has been passed without following the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. The respondents have remanded the Departmental Enquiry for second time and now the petitioner is required to participate in the enquiry for the third time. The petitioner has already faced the criminal trial in which he had been acquitted, therefore, there is no need of conducting the enquiry afresh by appointing new officer. Respondent’s case: The respondents filed a reply by submitting that the enquiry was

05. not conducted as per the Circular dated 01.10.2010 (Annexure-R/1), whereby the guidelines were issued for conducting the Departmental Enquiry against the police personal. It is further submitted that under Rule 15(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, the Disciplinary Authority if itself is not an Enquiry Officer, may reasons to be recorded in the writing and remit the case to the Enquiry Officer for fresh enquiry. The provisions of Regulation of 270(4) of the Police Regulation will not apply and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order under Rule 15(1) of the M.P. Civil Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 07-08-2023 10:01:07 -4- Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Appreciations & Conclusion:

06. The Enquiry Officer, Shri Chetan Singh Baghel submitted a detailed report, who was an Inspector, whereas the petitioner is a Sub Inspector and for conducting an enquiry against him, the Enquiry Officer should be a DSP or ASP. The respondents have also found that the enquiry was conducted in three stages and every time, the Enquiry Officer was transferred, but none of them followed the guidelines prescribed under the Circular dated 01.10.2010, hence, the matter was remanded back to conduct the enquiry afresh.

07. Learned counsel the petitioner submitted Superintendent of Police is a Disciplinary Authority who has initiated the enquiry against the petitioner, but the impugned order has been passed by the DIG, Indore who is not the competent authority. Under Police Regulation 229 if the Superintendent is empowered to pass the final order in the case, the paper will be filed in the office of DIG and this issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Mahesh Kumar Bhargav reported in 2017 (2) M.P.L.J. 334.

08. In the case of Ram Swaroop Pandey v/s The State Madhya Pradesh reported in 2015 (3) M.P.L.J. 453, it has also been held that Regulation 232 empowers Zonal Inspector General of Police or any police officer equivalent to the rank of Inspector General of Police to not only suspend the officer having the rank of Inspector pending enquiry but also inflict punishment specified in Regulations 214 & 215. Therefore, at the stage of enquiry, the procedure followed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 07-08-2023 10:01:07 -5- Enquiry Officer has been examined and as it is found that proper procedure was not followed, the matter is remanded back. The provisions of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1966 apply to the employees of the police department. Rule 15 gives authority to disciplinary authority if not satisfied may remit the enquiry to the enquiry officer to proceed under Rule 14.

09. However, it is the case of joint enquiry conducted against eight police officers out of which only one has filed the writ petition remaining seven are facing the Departmental Enquiry after remand. No case for interference is made out in the matter. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed. (VIVEK RUSIA) J U D G E Divyansh Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 07-08-2023 10:01:07