_.THE_HIGM_COUR'r_OS' JUDXGAIUSE eHHA'ETXSQARH Aa; BIIASPl® W.._SsSQ_.2-2.§&^2@Q2 PETITIONER : Vijay Siagb S/» Ram Singh, Aged abculs 31 years, I^/» Sb.S.felaPara Raagarh, Sadiyar.l.Blst'fe. Rairur (CG) VERSCTS RBSEONDENTS '^"> .^i^. J^S^ ^"^'^ .;>"^'^:>" ^^^.•'^" to^DState »f Gbhafetisgarfa, Thr»ugh, the SecrAfcary, Hame BepartroenlE,BKS Bhawaa, Rai^ur (ehba-ktisgarh) . 2)'The Birec'bT General »f Palice, Sba.te •.£ etahatt:.tsgarh, Paliee Head Qaarter, Near BKS Bhawan.Rai?ur (CS) « 3)lnsyecfe«r Qeneral •£P»Uce. Raipur, BistriettRaJ.yur (03) • 4)Superinfenaent ai Paliee, Bucg, O^striet:; Burg (CG). .&•"' MRir PETI'riON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 ®?_2HB_CONSTITB3?IGMB QS IKDIA li r ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,8-1-ot.. WRIT PETITION N0. 2358 OF 2002. PETITIONER: Vijay Singh -Versus- RESPONDENTS: Sfate of Chhattisgarh & others. •K. Post for order on 18' Jnly, 2006. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Afr. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAniSGARH : AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHR1 SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRIT PETmON N0,23% QF 2002, •iliiS PETITIONER: RESR3NDENTS: VijaySingh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others. Present: Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the peUtioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the respondents/ State. ORDER (Passed on /S+l<Julv. 2006) The prssent writ petition filed under Artictes 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 26/11/19% (Annexure-A/6), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg whereby the petitioner afong with one Mr. Naresh Rao were removed from service. The order dated 24/04/2002 (Annexure-A/10) passed by respondent No.1 was also impugned whereby the State Government dismissed the mercy application filed bythe petitioner. (2) The brief facts, in nut shell, are that the petitioner w@s worMng as Constebte and was posted at Bhitai when he was removed by order dated 28/06/1^1 (Annexure-A/1). The petitioner's removal was set aside by fte Inspector Genera! of Police vide order dated 08/05/1992 (Annexure-A/2) and he was reinstated in service. Thereafter, the petitioner along with one w 11t:nii Naresh Rao was suspended on 04/12/1997 (Annexure-A/3) on the ground of registration of a criminal case against them in Police Station, Bhitai Nagar. The petitioner along with Naresh Rao was served with a charge- sheet and two charges were framed against the petitioner, which reads thus: •(1.) STTCtlft 3TROT5' ';:^?T 'W *^l'cb 166 ( ft?T.) ^ ^Sg ••- 1. 'f^TT 'f^?ft 'feq€t 'EP 3l<ill5|^d ^T ^ amT ftcn^ ?pT? ^ &:i-4i'-d4ri ';wp? sra^ ^ ^pr'5%wtTr ^^ ^? 'toi^^ 'f^wtr ^ i^ig^ ^rf •w '^ra? srsf: tR:R T^ ^j^sr sii^t'iui •EPT 4R^y '^TT 2. 3. (2.) 1. z, 4.12.97 ^ '^ 'feq^t ^ ^ITR wra ^?r "^r ^p? iT.ff. Rri^r ^T srraw ^PPT 23-^ ^r ftfer yicisyMl' q5T 'iiwi'y'i q^TT 1 ^Rra w-^w ^ Rig w ^ f^?ig' ^pf ^PT^ t^ ^ ^ ?fea' •f^ ^IT^ ^ 6|]c|u^ tft 3jq^ aiiTi•<"i ^ •^TR ?T ?rra?; 3[q^ 3nqq?t ^nTT -^ wrtTq •feg ^77?ff i srRWt STRSR; f^sra ^TR 1^f? ^Wdp 840 ^ 1^>g :- ^RT f^ft f^q^t ^ SRTtl^T ^IT ^ smr ft?n^ ?WT ^•i>ll"d^ ^rra^ sra^ TC w ^w'yl'i 'sf^ §? ^iFto f^ra'ift ^ f^g 'Sp^ ^^. ^cp 3IET:'CRPT ^? ^'Sf S)W-;U| ?pr qR-cj^ ^ | ^ 1991 ^ f^TFT ^t ^T ^PRT ^^ ^ STR^T ^ •^qT •^ i^R! f^ ^ETT^ ^ «rra^? <ft srq^ STTER'CT •^ zpr^ ^m ?r ?fTcR ^T: ^m ^TFT ^ srat^r ^g- qTprr i" (3) According to Shri P.R. Patankar, leamed counsel appearing for tfie petitioner, the petitioner was afforded adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing and there is no irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority, Superintendent of Police, Durg agreeing with the llt:iiis2nN enquiry report submited by one Shri R.P. Sharma, City Superintendent of Potice, removed the petitioner and said Naresh Rao from ssrvice on being found all the charges framsd against the petitioner and Naresh Rao proved. The petitioner preferred an appeal before fte Dy. Inspector General of Police, Raipur against the order of removal dated 26/11/1998 (Annexure-A/6) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg. The Appellate Authority by order dated 08/02/1999 (Annexure-A/8) dismissed the appea! of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the appea! ofsaid Naresh Rao was also dismissed. (4) In the meantime, the petitioner and Naresh Rao were acquitted in the criminal trial of the offences under Section 506-B and 394/34 of the Sndian Penat Code giving benefrt of doubt to the petitioner and Naresh Rao. (5) The petitioner and Naresh Rao being aggrieved by ths order dated 08/02/1999 (Annexure-A/8) passed by the Appellate Authority, ftled mercy applications before the State Govemment and the State Government having considered the case of the (setitioner and that of Naresh Rao, rejected the application of the petitioner and accepted the application of Naresh Rao. (6) Learned counset appearing for fte pet'rtioner submits that the petitioner and Naresh Rao were charged for the same offence. Both the persons were removed from service on the basis of the departmental snquiry by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal filed by ttie petitioner and Naresh Rao was also dismissed. Thereafter, the Director General of Police allowed the mercy application of Naresh Rao converting his punishment of removal from servtee to S^E; K \^' withholding of one increment for one year without back-wages and the mercy application of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel further submits that ftis is a clear case of discrimination. He submits that when both the persons were charged for the same offence they shouU have been treated by the Director General of Potice similariy. f7) Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, per corrtra, submits that the charges against the petitioner were different from that of Mr.Naresh Rao. Learned counsel submits that Mr. Naresh Rao was found in drunken condition in the night duty and the petitioner was removed from service earlier in the year 1991 and thereafter reinstated in service to improve his conduct, but, the peUtioner repeated his conduct by not showing any improvement in his behaviour and conduct. (8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and hawng perused the records appended to the writ petition and return, it is found that the charges against the petitioner were different from that of said Naresh Rao. Naresh Rao was found in drunken condition, as such he was giwn opportunity to improve his conduct and his punishment of removal from service was converted into withholding of one increment for one year and he was reinstated in service without back-wages. So far as petitioner is concemed, he was removed from service earlier in the year 1991 for having committed serious misconduct and he was reinstated in service by the Inspector General of Police with a warning to improve his conduct. The petittoner failed to improve his conduct and committed a very serious offence of oufraging modesty of a lady. Though the petitioner was acquitted of the said offence in criminal trial by giving him benefrt of doubt, he cannot take advantage of acquittal in the departmental proceedings as he was not acquitted honourabiy, but by gMng benefit of doubt. (9) This is not the case of ths petitioner that there was any irregularity or itlegality in the process of conduct of enquiry. The entire grievance of the petitioner is that he was treated discriminately by ttie State Authorities while considering his mercy apptication. It is well recognized principle of law that this Court in exercise of its power undsr Articles 226/227 of the Constitution has jurisdiction to interfere with the process of decision- making if the same is illegal and perverse, but, not in the decision which has been reached by the Enquiry Officer after foliowing the due process of law by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. This is not a case where the grievance of the petitioner is based on perversity or illegality in conduct of enquiry. It is neither pleaded nor established that there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of ths charges. Thus, this is not a case for interference with the enquiry report, order passed by the Discipiinary Authority and the Appeltate Authoriiy, by this Court. (10) For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agaihotn Judge