Bhurji vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the charge sheet dated 03.05.2016 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dewas.

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department and after rendering the entire service now he has been retired from the post of

Sub Inspector, Police on 31.01.2016. The respondent No.1 issued a charge sheet dated 03.05.2016 to the petitioner on a complaint made by one Smt.

Ramtu Bai alleging that she is second wife of the petitioner as he was already married to one Sewanit Bai who is still alive and not divorced. The

respondent NO.1 appointed respondent No.2 as Enquiry Officer and SHO, Bagli as Presenting Officer.

As per the allegations in the charge sheet, the petitioner had nominated Smt. Sewanti Bai as wife in the column of nomination for death-cum-

retirement gratuity, family pension and other papers submitted on 05.01.2011. Smt. Ramtu Bai filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C

before the JMFC, Dhar to claim the maintenance from the petitioner. Vide order dated 20.05.2002, the JMFC, Dhar has held that Smt. Ramtu Bai

being a wife is entitled to claim maintenance. Thereafter, filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C seeking enhancement in the

maintenance amount. By order dated 27.04.2012 the learned JMFC, Dhar has enhanced the maintenance amount Rs.1,500/-Rs.1,500/- per month and

directed the petitioner to pay the same to Smt. Ramtu Bai and her two daughters. By order dated 30.09.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Dewas

has directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance to Smt. Ramtu Bai and her two two daughters in compliance of the order dated 27.04.2012 passed

by the JMFC, Dhar.

The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice to the Superintendent of Police by submitting that Smt. Sewanti Bai is his legally married wife

and residing with him and Smt. Ramtu Bai is making false complaints and he is giving maintenance to her as a divorced wife.

By a letter dated 21.03.2016, the Deputy Inspector General of Police Ujjain has directed the Superintendent of Police, Dewas to initiate the enquiry

under Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 as the petitioner is having two wives. Meanwhile, the

petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016. After four months of the retirement, the respondents

served a charge sheet to the petitioner dated 03.05.2016.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid charge sheet the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the charge sheet on the ground that no

departmental enquiry could be initiated against him without seeking permission of His Excellence Governor of Madhya Pradesh as required under sub

Section 2 (b) (i) (ii) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976. In support of his ground, the petitioner has placed reliance

over the judgement passed in the case of R.K. Jain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2015 (2) MPLJ 526. The petitioner is challenging

the charge sheet on the ground that the alleged incident is more than 4 years old before the retirement of the petitioner on 31.01.2016, therefore, no

departmental action could be initiated against him in view of under Section Section 2 (b) (i) (ii) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services

(Pension) Rules 1976.

After notice, the respondents filed the reply by submitting that the proceedings of departmental enquiry have been initiated when Smt. Ramtu Bai

submitted a complaint on 19.06.2015. Thereafter, facts were enquired, documents were collected and the charge sheet was served, therefore, the

departmental proceedings has already been instituted while the petitioner was a Government servant, therefore, the sanction from the Governor as per

Rule 9 (2)

(b) is not required. The petitioner has violated Rule 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 as during the lifetime of his wife,

he married another lady, therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected.

Heard the arguments of Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the petitioner & Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned GA for the respondents/State.

Facts of the case are not in much dispute as the petitioner has retired from service on 31.01.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation and after

four months of the retirement, the charge sheet dated 03.05.2016 was served upon him. By order dated 20.03.2002, the learned Magistrate has found

that Smt. Sewanti Bai is his first wife and directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance to the second wife i.e. Smt. Ramtu Bai, therefore, the

incident of second marriage took place sometime in the year 2002 which is 4 years old then the date of retirement, therefore, the provisions of Rule 9

(2)(b)(ii) gets attracted.

Now, the only question remains is whether the departmental enquiry is said to have been instituted on issuance of charge sheet or when the complaint

was made by Smt. Ramtu Bai on 19.06.2015. On the basis of complaint made by Smt. Ramtu Bai, the Superintendent of Police, Dewas vide letter

dated 30.09.2015 directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance. The petitioner stood retired from service on 31.01.2016. Thereafter, vide letter dated

21.03.2015, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ujjain directed the Superintendent of Police, Dhar to initiate action under Rule 22 of the Madhya

Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976, therefore, the decision was taken to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement.

Under sub-Rule 6 of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 for the purpose of this Rule the department proceedings shall

be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or the pensioner, therefore, in view of

the sub-Rule 6, the Departmental enquiry against the petitioner is deemed to be instituted on the issuance of charge which is admittedly four months

after his retirement, therefore, the sanction of the Governor is required before issuing a charge sheet, hence, in view of the above, charge sheet dated

03.05.2016 is hereby quashed.

However, the respondents are at liberty to institute a departmental enquiry against the petitioner as per the provisions provided under Rule 2(b) (i) &

(ii) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 after obtaining sanction of the Governor.

Petition is partly allowed.