AMENDMENT PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR M.P. W.P.(S)NO. 2784 /2005 O.A.No. 126 /1999 APPLICANT ti. )^ NON-APPLICANTS Rajesh Sahu Son of Shri B.R. Sahu, aged 28 years, R/o Kasaridih, Durg. VERSUS 1. State of Madhya Pradesh Now the State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary Department of Home, Government of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Inspector General of Police, M.P., Bhopal. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Balaghat, Distt. Balaghat APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT. 1985 ^Sr-y^. 13^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} N0.2784 OF 2005 PETITIONER RajeshSahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others •^, Post for pronouncement of the orders on the _M_7day of March, 2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I^^-T^S^ ®aI '}/ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARi-LLBlLASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fS) N0.2784 OF 2005 Rajesh Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)& Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present;- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. (Delivered on this /^'day of March, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 2-10-1998 (Annexure A/1) by which the petitioner has been removed from service. 2. The indisputabie facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that pursuant to the enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner that the petitioner had given wrong information in coturnn No.12 and 12-A in his verification form, concealing the fact that he was arrested on 4-3-1991 in an offence punishable under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and he was produced in the Court on 1-4-1991. Secondly, the submission ofwrong information amounts to misconduct. 3. The petitioner, working as Constable in Police Station Aundhi, District Rajnandgaon, was removed from the services by the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, by order dated 30-5-1994 (AnnexureA/3). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector Generai of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur, which was a^^S^ ^ 6. dismissed by order dated 27-7-1994 (Annexure - R/3). Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, the same was also rejected by order dated 13-2-1995 (Annexure R/4). Thereafter, the petitioner approached the State Government in mercy appeal. The State Government by order dated 29-5-1997 (Annexure A/5) acquitted thepetitioner from the charges proved in the enquiry against the petitioner and directed reinstatement in service without back wages on the principle of lno work no pay'. As a sequel, the petitioner was reinstated inservice on the basis of the order passed by the State Government in the name of Govemor in exercise of power under Article 166 (1) of the Constitution of.lndia, on 14-9-1997. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhalaghat Range by order dated 2-10-1998 (Annexure A/1), ignoring the order passed by the State Government, removed the petitioner from service as founding him not suitable. The question for consideration before this Court is once the charges have been set aside and the.delinquent employee has been reinstated by the order passed by the State Government in accordance with Article 166 (1) of the Constitution, whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police can set-aside the order passed by the State Government, and complywith the order passed by the Director General of Police, which had already been set aside by the State Government, by removing the petitioner again from service, on the same charges. Without going into the merits of the case, asto whether the charges were rightly proved or not, when the State Govemment has "w'" 8. 9. Govvri acquitted the petitioner from the charges and directed reinstatement without back wages. The officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, without examining the order passed by the State Government, cannot pass the impugned order of removal against the delinquent employee, being incompetent. Indisputably the order dated 29-5-1997 (Annexure - A/5) was passed by the State Government in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 166 (1) ofthe Constitution of India. The said order cannot be reviewed by any authority including the Minister concerned. The State Government alone can modify or review its own order. If the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Balaghat Range, who is not the disciplinary authority, in case of the petitioner, was of the view that the order passed by Director General of Police dated 13-2-1995 was binding on him, he ought to have requested the State Government to modify the order before passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order dated 2-10-1998 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Balaghat Range, is bad, illegal, perverse and unconstitutional. Accordingly, the same desen/es to be quashed. Resultantly, the impugned orderdated 2-10-1998 (Annexure - P/1) is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all benefits flowing from quashing ofthe impugned order. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge