Manoj Verma vs State of M.P.

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to legality and validity of the charge sheet issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur served on the petitioner at Gwalior where he is posted, in relation to alleged misconduct committed while he was posted at Jabalpur, with covering letter of Superintendent of Police, Gwalior dated 05/05/2014.

The sole argument advanced by petitioner is as regards competency and authority of the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to issue charge sheet. Reliance is placed on an order passed by a single Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur on 03/05/2013 in W.P. No. 21639/2012 in relation to the petitioner. It is pointed out that by the said order, the charge sheet issued to the petitioner was quashed by this Court on the ground that the competent authority to issue charge sheet was Inspector General of Police whereas the charge sheet was issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Range, Jabalpur. Therefore, picking up the clue therefrom, it is submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur lacks competency and authority in the light of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in the matter of issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner and, hence, the action is unsustainable in the eye of law.

Besides, it is further submitted that petitioner is working as Reserve Inspector and, therefore, even if the Superintendent of Police is competent to issue charge sheet to the Inspector, the petitioner not being falling in the cadre of Inspector but Reserve Inspector, the Superintendent of Police is not competent to issue the charge sheet against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has acquired the status of a Gazetted Officer by orders dated 11/04/2008 and 18/12/2008 (Annexure P/9) issued by the respondents'' and, therefore, Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) are not applicable for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

Per contra, the respondents'' counsel, Shri Praveen Newaskar has submitted to the effect that the issue as regards competence of the authority to issue charge sheet to the employees in the cadre of Inspector of Police was referred to a Division Bench in view of conflicting decisions rendered by Single Benches. The Division Bench of this Court reported in Arun Prakash Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Others, has finally drawn curtain and, therefore, the issue is no more res integra as it has been ruled that under Regulation 228 of the Regulations, the Superintendent of Police is competent authority to issue charge sheet upon the Inspector of Police and IG/DIG has no competency to issue the charge sheet. Accordingly, competency of the Superintendent of Police has been upheld under Regulation 228 of the Regulations to issue charge sheet to personnel working in Inspector cadre, secondly, it is submitted that there is only one cadre of Inspector of Police in the Police establishment and the persons serving as Inspector and Reserve Inspector may have different functions to perform but are in the same cadre. Petitioner who is working as Reserve Inspector falls in the cadre of Inspector of Police, therefore, the Superintendent of Police is competent to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner and thirdly; merely because the petitioner claims to have been given the status of Gazetted officer that by itself would not keep him out of the purview of the Regulations for invitation of disciplinary proceedings/issuance of charge sheet as has been held in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (Supra).

Having considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (Supra) has categorically held that under Regulation 228 of the Regulations, the Superintendent of Police only is competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings/issue of charge sheet for major penalties, against an Inspector of Police. As such, no illegality is found in the matter of issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police. As regards submission of petitioner that Reserve Inspector forms a separate cadre other than the cadre of Inspector of Police, nothing has been pointed out by the counsel for petitioner to substantiate such claim. Even there is no provision in the Regulations which provides different cadres for Inspector of Police and the Reserve Inspector. As such, Inspector of Police and Reserve Inspector, both fall in the same cadre only. However, it may be possible that the Reserve Inspector may have different functions to perform at different levels but this itself does not make such officer/employee a class other than that of class of Inspector of Police. Hence, there is no force in the submission that Reserve inspector is different from the Inspector of Police and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police has no competency to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner and thirdly, the Division Bench has held that despite induction of Police Inspector into the gazetted position, he would still be in the cadre of Inspector of Police and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police under Regulation 228 of the Regulations is fully competent to issue charge sheet. As such, all the submissions raised by the petitioner are not sustainable in the eye of law.

In view of the above, petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.

Certified copy as per rules.