Ashok Sharma vs State Of M.P. And Others

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dt.30.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar as well as the order passed by the appellate authority on 15.02.2018 (Annexure P/1), whereby the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dt.30.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar is without authority, as he is not having jurisdiction to impose the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. He has heavily relied upon the judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Anil Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others - 2008 (1) MPHT 54 (CG) and G.R.Gaharwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - 2009 (3) MPHT 43 (CG) and submitted that the case of the petitioner is exactly identical with the aforesaid cases. It is also submitted that against the order dt.30.9.2017 (Annexure P/2), an appeal was preferred before the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, which was rejected vide order dt.15.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) affirming the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar. On these grounds, he seeks quashment of the impugned orders.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State submitted that the orders passed by the respondents authorities are just and proper and do not call for any interference in the present petition. He has further drawn attention of this court to the Regulation 221 of the Police Regulations and submitted that Superintendent of Police is empowered to impose punishment of reduction of salary and accordingly, he has exercised the power and imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. On these grounds, learned Panel Lawyer prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner is working as Sub Inspector and discharging his duties with utmost devotion and sincerity. The petitioner was entrusted with the investigation of case No.107/2015 for the offence under Sections 394 and 302 of IPC, wherein the petitioner carried out the investigation fairly with full devotion. The petitioner was surprised when he received a show cause notice regarding dereliction of duties and subsequently faced with the order of departmental enquiry. Reply to the show cause notice was filed. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Accordingly, Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar exercising the power under Regulation 221 imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Effect and impact of amended Regulations 214 and 221 of the Police Regulations was subject matter in the case of Anil Tiwari (supra), in which High Court of Chhattisgarh held that imposition of penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and as such can not be imposed by the Superintendent of Police. In the aforesaid judgment, reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court has been placed.

In view of the identical issue decided by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the impugned order (Annexure P/2) appears to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable. Superintendent of Police was having no authority to pass the aforesaid order.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and the impugned order dt.30.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Superintendent of Police Ashok Nagar and the order dt.15.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior are hereby quashed.

No order as to costs.