Narmada Pd. Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors  Insc 742 (3 November 2006)
Ar. Lakshmanan & Tarun Chatterjee
SLP(C) No.14461 OF 2005) Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
have heard Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.
B.S. Banathia, learned counsel for the respondents. We have perused the charge
framed against the appellant and the reports submitted by the Inquiry Officer,
the orders of the Director General of Police, the M.P. Administrative Tribunal
and also of the High Court.
charge framed against the appellant reads as follows:
25.1.1993 by detaining Shri Ram Singh s/o Deshraj Singh Parthar without any
reason and keeping his license, cycle and Rs.50/- with him and demanding
Rs.1000/- for giving the item back and receiving the money. In this way you
have given utmost disrespect towards your duty and by showing corrupt behaviour
you have proved yourself not fit for the department." A perusal of the
Inquiry Officer's report would clearly go to show that no independent witness
had been examined to prove the demand and taking money by the appellant in his
hand nor is there any evidence of detaining the applicant in a half constructed
the matter was taken on appeal before the Director General of Police, he
reduced the penalty of dismissal given by the Superintendent of Police and
reinstated the accused and also reverted the appellant to the post of Constable
from that of Head Constable as a penalty for a period of two years from 16.11.1993
against the imposition of the said penalty, the appellant preferred original
application before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.875/1994, which
affirmed the penalty imposed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the
Director General of Police.
matter was taken to the High Court by the appellant by filing a writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court affirmed the
orders passed by all the other Authorities. Being aggrieved, the appellant
preferred the above civil appeal in this Court.
have already reproduced in paragraph supra the charge framed against the
appellant. There is absolutely no evidence in regard to the demand of bribe of
Rs.1,000/- or receipt of the same by the appellant. No satisfactory evidence
was adduced to prove the charge in question.
such circumstances, the penalty imposed by the Director General of Police
de-promoting him from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable
cannot at all be countenanced. In our opinion, the case on hand is a case of no
evidence. It is also a matter of record that the appellant had an unblemished
service record of 21 years and the said factor has also not been considered by
the Authorities while imposing the penalty.
therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the punishment inflicted on the
appellant and allow this appeal. The period of two years mentioned hereinabove
will be treated as the appellant was on duty as Head Constable and the
appellant will also be entitled to all the monetary benefits for the said
result, the judgments of the M.P.
Tribunal and the High Court stand set aside. The Civil Appeal is allowed. No