RAJENDRA KUMAR CHATTURVEDI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is working on the post of Sub-Inspector in the Home (Police) Department of the State Government. On the basis of the allegation that while registering Crime No.314/04 he did not register the crime for serious offence under Sections 325, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and registered the same under minor offence of Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, that X-Ray report of injury was obtained belatedly and other irregularities in the investigation of the said crime the fourth respondent Superintendent of Police Mandsaur District inflicted upon the petitioner penalty of Censure vide order dated 08.12.2005 (Annexure P-2). This order of Censure was reviewed by the third respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ratlam Range vide order dated 15.07.2006 and after a preliminary enquiry a charge sheet dated 16.05.2008 (AnnexureP-1) has been issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Briefly stated on account of the allegations as aforesaid the petitioner was punished by way of Censure vide order dated 08.12.2005 (AnnexureP-2) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur. The aforesaid order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Police was cancelled in suo-moto revision vide order dated 15.07.2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ratlam Range under Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations (for short Police Regulations) being the authority superior to the authority which has passed the order of Censure. Thereafter a preliminary enquiry as ordered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ratlam was conducted through S.D.O. Police Sub Division Garoth. After perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O. Police Sub-Division Garoth the Superintendent of Police Mandsaur submitted his report dated 08.03.2008 before the Deputy inspector General of Police, Ratlam stating therein that petitioner is not guilty of the allegations except to the extent of late receiving of the X-Ray report. After perusal of the said report the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 15.04.2008 directed the Superintendent of Police to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner. In terms of the said, order the impugned charge-sheet dated 16.05.2008 has been issued to the petitioner.

(3.) It has been contended by Shri D.M.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner that before cancelling the order (AnnexureP-2), of penalty of censure imposed by the Superintendent of Police the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Revising Authority) has not served upon the petitioner a notice giving opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances according to him the order of the Deputy Inspector General and the issuance of the charge-sheet on the basis of such order is contrary to the Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations and is also violative of the principles of natural justice.