Full Judgment
S.L. Kochar, J.
1. The petitioner has lodged his grievance against the order dated 4-7-98 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench (Division Bench) in O.A. No. 499/96 whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed his petition and maintaining the order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 30-4-94 passed by the then Superintendent of Police, Dhar and affirmed in appeal by order in appeal dated 27-7-94 as well as in the representation by order dated 17-2-95 respectively.
2. The petitioner assailed the order of removal from service before the learned Tribunal on three grounds :--
(i) He was appointed by way of promotion as Head Constable by the Dy. Inspector General of Police vide order dated 23-9-98 whereas he was removed by the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the order of removal was without jurisdiction.
(ii) Regarding non-compliance of Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). According to him, without any order by the competent authority by common proceedings, the departmental enquiry was held againstthe petitioner and Constable Vijaysingh. Therefore, thesame was without jurisdiction,
(iii) He contended that the punishment imposed on him wasdisproportionate to the allegations levelled against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments reported in Navin Kumar v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1989 MPLJ 514) and Mahesh Kumar v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1985 MPLJ 516).
3. The learned Tribunal refused to entertain any of the grounds and dismissed the petition by the impugned order which is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition.
4. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it would be pertinent to mention hereinbelow the charges for which the departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and Constable Vijay Singh:--
vkosnd dsdfM;k firk ukuflag Hkhy fuoklhdks.nk }kjk vkokjk HkSal feyus dh lwpuk nsus ij vkosnd ls HkSal dh vk/kh dher 5gtkj :i;s nsus dh ekax djuk ,oa vkosnd }kjk mY jkf'k nsus dh ckr ls bUdkj djusij fnukad 11&3&93 dks vkosnd ds xzke dk.nk tkdj vkosnd ,oa mlds HkkbZ 'kadjds lkFk vdkj.k ekjihV dj xaHkhj dnkpj.k djukA
2 mijksY R; ls cpus ds fy, mY vkokjkHkSal dks pkjh dh HkSal crkdj /kkjk 102 tk-Qks- vUrxZr dk;Zokgh dj voS/kkfud R;djukA
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, in reply, submitted that as per Rule 221 of the M.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') the Superintendent of Police has power to inflict punishment of removal from service to Head Constables and Constables. The service of the petitioner was governed by M.P. Police Regulations. She further submitted that the appointing authority and disciplinary authorities may be different and as per Regulation 221, the Superintendent of Police has acted well within his jurisdiction. She has also submitted that Rule 18 of the Rules has also been complied with by order dated 16-9-93 which is disclosing the fact that Shri M.S. Raghuvanshi, S.D.O.P. was appointed for holding joint enquiry by a competent authority against the petitioner and Constable Vijaysingh. Regarding quantum of punishment, she submitted that in the light of serious charges of demand of bribe, that too from an illiterate tribal, the punishment of removal is just and proper.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the petition of the petitioner.
7. The petitioner has rightly been removed from service by theSuperintendent of Police in exercise of powers under Regulation 221. Regulation 221 reads as under:--
'221. Power of S.P.-- An Assistant Inspector General or a Superintendent exercises the following powers of punishment :--
(a) Power to inflict any of the punishments specified in Regulations 214 and 217 on Head Constables and Constables.
(b) Power to inflict on Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors, the penalties specified in Regulation 214 (i) and (iv) or in Regulation 215 (a) and (b) or to withhold the increment of a Sub-Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector for a period of one year from the date on which it falls due.
(c) Power to reduce the pay of Sub-Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector,
(c-1) Power to inflict the punishment of censure on Inspectors.
(d) Power to suspend any non-gazetted officer of policepending inquiry into his conduct.'
Regulation 214 is also reproduced hereinbelow:--
'214. Punishment-- Kinds of.-- Without prejudice to the provisions of any law or any special orders for the time being in force, the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon any member holding a post in a Subordinate Police Service :--
(vi) Removal from the service which does not disqualify fromfuture employment,
(vii) Dismissal from service which ordinarily disqualifies forfuture employment.'
The M.P. Police Regulations has a statutory force on this point. We can usefully refer the following judgments :--
(1) Malvendra Singh Sandhu v. State of M.P., (1984 WN 379);
(2) State of U.P. and Ors. v. Baburam Upadhya (AIR 1961 SC 751).
The order of removal from service of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police is well within his jurisdiction.
8. So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of Rule 18 of the Rules, we have perused the order dated 16-9-93 passed by the Disciplinary/Removal Authority/Superintendent of Police, Dhar. This order is addressed to Shri M.S. Raghuvanshi, S.D.O.P., Manawar.The subject matter was for holding departmental enquiry of Head Constable the petitioner Rameshchandra and Constable Vijaysingh. Thereafter, a direction was issued to him for his appointment as an Enquiry Officer and completion of enquiry and sending the report to the S.P. Office within a week. This order is clearly indicating that the S.P., Dhar passed the order for common proceedings and this order is fully satisfying the requirement of Rule 18 of the Rules. The whole contents of this order is impliedly indicating that the Superintendent of the Police, Dhar had passed the order for common proceedings.
9. We have gone through the judgments of this Court relied on by the petitioner. In both these judgments (1984 WN 379 and AIR 1961 SC 751) (supra) the order of punishment was passed by the authorities who was not competent and there was no order in compliance of Rule 18. But in the case on hand, statute is specifically authorising the Superintendent of Police for passing the order of removal and he has passed the order for common inquiry. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the cases of Malvendra Singh and State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (supra) are not applicable.
10. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the Tribunal, in para 6 relying on the Supreme Court judgment rendered in State of U.P. v. Nandkishore Shukla (AIR 1996 SC 1561) has held that in view of the proof of the charge No. 1 against the petitioner who was serving as a Police Head Constable, is required to act strictly within the discipline more than any other department. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority on a delinquent employee, the Tribunal did not feel it unjust. This Court also does not feel to show any indulgence on the question of quantum of punishment looking to the charges of corruption found proved in the enquiry against the petitioner.
11. As a result of the discussion as aforesaid, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.