Narmada Pd. Yadav vs State Of M.P. & Ors

We 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.

The charge framed against the appellant reads as

follows:

"On 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 house.

When 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 to 16.11.1995.

Aggrieved 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.

The 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.

We 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.

Under 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.

We, 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 period.

In the result, the judgments of the M.P.

Administrative Tribunal and the High Court stand set

aside. The Civil Appeal is allowed. No costs.