CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4660 of 2006 PETITIONER: NARMADA PD. YADAV RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/11/2006 BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(@ SLP(C) No.14461 OF 2005)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
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.