(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner is challenging order of punishment Annexure -A -7 passed by respondent No. 4 compulsorily retiring him from his services on account of misconduct committed by him. The order of punishing authority was affirmed in departmental appeal by respondent No. 3 Inspector General of Police. That order is Annexure -A -9 dated 23 -11 -1996.
(2.) THIS fact is not in dispute that petitioner arrested accused Rajkumar on 13 -12 -1994 and thereafter petitioner was transferred from Bargi Police Station to Balaghat on 3 -1 -1995.
(3.) THE contension of Shri Upadhyaya is that neither the arrest memo was produced in the enquiry proceedings in order to show that petitioner tampered the age mentioned in the arrest memo, nor there is any material in order to hold that petitioner produced accused Rajkumar in the juvenile Court. It has been further contended by the Learned Counsel that there is no satisfactory material on record in order to demonstrate that petitioner submitted the challan before the juvenile Court.