GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a terminated Head Constable has challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment order of dismissal dated 3.7.2012 (Annexure P/8). The appellate order dated 12.10.12 and the order passed rejecting the petitioner's mercy appeal dated 22.4.2013 are also under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner while working as Constable No.1216 in Police Station-Cantt., Sagar was served with a charge sheet dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner filed his reply and denied the charges in toto. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was instituted. In the departmental inquiry certain prosecution witnesses entered the witness box to support the story of prosecution. After recording the evidence in the said inquiry, the Inquiry Officer prepared his report (Annexure P/5). A copy of said inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner along with a show-cause notice dated 10.6.2012 (Annexure P/6). In turn, the petitioner submitted the detail reply dated 19.6.2012. The disciplinary authority, by impugned order dated 3.7.2012 inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner's appeal and mercy appeal were dismissed by the competent authority.

(3.) Shri. Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the complaint of Ms. Sapna w/o Bablu Adiwasi was given to the petitioner on 23.3.2011 and it remained with him till 8.4.2011. On 8.4.2011, the Lokayukt Organization seized certain documents from the petitioner including the complaint of Ms. Sapna. Thus, the complaint remained with the petitioner for a small period of time during which he had recorded the statements of two persons and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner kept the complaint of Ms. Sapna without further action/inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner kept the said complaint with him for 15 days. By taking this court to the statement of witnesses, it is submitted that the witnesses have not deposed anything against the petitioner which may show that petitioner had any oblique motive. He further submits that the allegations mentioned against him does not constitute misconduct. The petitioner has categorically proved that the similar complaints were kept pending for months together by the police authorities but no action was taken against them. Reliance is placed on Annexure P/15. He further submits that the disciplinary authority has taken into account the pendency of Lokayukt case against the petitioner for imposition of punishment. The said pendency of Lokayukt case was not the subject matter of allegation in the charge-sheet and, therefore, the said reason could not have been a basis for inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service. Moreso, by the judgment dated 7.3.3014 (Annexure P/16), the petitioner has been exonerated on merits by the Special Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the documents Annexure P/13 and P/14 show that the appellate authorities have interfered with the similar punishment and exonerated the similarly situated employees. Heavy reliance is placed on the appellate order of Head Constable No.859 Shri. Ram Prasad (Annexure P/14).