BALARAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.B. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner- Balaram Verma submits that petitioner -Balaram was working as Head Constable at Reserved Centre Dhamtari and other two petitioners were posted as Constables. Charge sheet issued to all the three petitioners leveling four charges against them and after conclusion of departmental enquiry, Disciplinary Authority punished all the three imposing penalty of bringing down their scale of pay to the minimum of pay scale for a period of one year with cumulative effect.

(2.) The two other petitioners who were Constables preferred an Appeal under Regulation 262 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations before Inspector General of Police, whereas petitioner Balaram, Head Constable, has not preferred any appeal. After receiving memo of appeal and having applied its mind on the appeal preferred by other two petitioners, Appellate Authority issued notices to all the three petitioners invoking its power of revision under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations. It is contended that once the appeal is filed by the delinquent employee against imposition of punishment before the authority then the Appellate Authority could not have exercised the jurisdiction of revision. The Appellate Authority is having no powers to enhance the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Inspector General of Police before whom appeal was preferred, after accepting the appeal, enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service which is per se illegal and contrary to provision of law.

(3.) In support of his contention, he referred to Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations as also relied upon judgment reported in Govind Warkade Vs. State of CG and Ors. reported 2007 (2) CGLJ 507. Referring to Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations, he contended that the revisional jurisdiction could have been invoked after passing of order by the last appellate authority, whereas, the Inspector General of Police who is superior to Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police is not the last appellate authority, hence also, he could not have exercised the jurisdiction of revision under Regulation 270. In the order passed by Inspector General of Police, it is mention that the delinquent employees if aggrieved from the order passed can prefer appeal before the Director General of Police under provision of Regulation 262 of the Police Regulations, hence the order passed by Inspector General of Police cannot be treated as an order passed in exercise of jurisdiction of revision but the order prima facie appears to have been passed in exercise of jurisdiction of appeal under Regulation 262 and, therefore, he could not have enhanced the punishment imposed upon the petitioners by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by Inspector General of Police, preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police which was dismissed by impugned order. He next submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioners are not proved because in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, the key witnesses who are stated to be the victims have not been examined by the department. The finding recorded with respect to charge No.2 is without any evidence, therefore not sustainable. With respect to charge No.1 it is submitted that the petitioners (police officials), after receiving information in the night at about 1:00 am of nexallite meeting at nearby village, immediately rushed to spot. As the information received by them was of serious nature of holding a meeting by one nexallite in the village, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any misconduct. Similarly, the charge No.4 also could not be proved in absence of examination of Driver and Helper of the truck i.e. T. Narayan and G. Ramanna as witnesses. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of UP and Ors. reported in 1999 (8) SCC 582. Lastly, he contended that even if, for the sake of arguments, the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer of proof of all the four charges is accepted as it is, then also, the charges levelled against the petitioners are not of so grave in nature so as to impose major penalty of dismissal from service. Order of punishment is disproportionate to the charges stated to be proved against petitioners and instead of dismissal of the petitioners from service, some other punishment could have been imposed. He contended that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court can consider quantum of punishment awarded to petitioners considering the nature of charges levelled against them. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 (10) SCC 301. He contended that writ petition be allowed with all consequential benefits.