SHOBHARAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, the petitioners have called in question the disciplinary proceedings, the punishment order and the orders by which their appeal, mercy appeal and revision are dismissed.

(2.) SHRI Katare, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were subjected to a disciplinary action pursuant to charge sheet (Annexure A -2) dated 1.5.2001. The petitioners submitted their detailed reply and denied the charges. The enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry. The enquiry is assailed on the ground that before conducting the regular departmental enquiry, the preliminary enquiry (PE) was conducted. The statement of witnesses recorded in the P.E. were not provided to the petitioners despite demand.

(3.) THE contention is opposed by Mrs. Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate. It is contended that the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were duly supplied to the petitioners. By drawing attention on documents dated 19.5.2001 (Annexure R -1), it is contended that the documents relied upon for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings were supplied to the petitioners. The irrelevant documents were rightly not supplied to the petitioner. It is contended that there is no procedural flaw in the enquiry. By taking this Court to certain paragraphs of the reply, it is prayed that no interference be made. It is further contended that the Superintendent of Police is competent to inflict the punishment being a disciplinary authority as per Clause 214 of Police Regulations.