State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs Dev Vrat Mishra others

Appellants/State have filed this appeal against the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the writ Court in writ petition No.18465/2012(s).

Respondent No.1 Dev Vrat Mishra, was subjected to a departmental enquiry. Two charges were levelled against him, that he was entrusted to conduct investigation of Crime No.220/2002, however, he was negligent and callous in the investigation. Hence, he had committed misconduct in accordance with rule 3(i) of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965. Second charge levelled against the respondent No.1 is that a cassette in which the voice of the accused was recorded in regard to demand of bribe, was destroyed and due to aforesaid Act, FR had to be filed in a criminal case.

A trap was conducted against an employee K.P. Namdeo by Mr. N.K. Parihar, the then Inspector Lokayukta Organization Sagar. He had prepared a transcript in which voice of Mr. Namdeo was recorded to the effect that he had made demand of bribe. A criminal case vide Crime No.202/2002 was registered. Transcript was prepared on 6.10.2002 and seizure Panchnama was prepared. Criminal case was transferred to the respondent No.1 vide order dated 27.10.2002. Mr. Parihar handed over the case diary and documents relating to investigation to the respondent No.1 for further investigation. The respondent No.1 completed the investigation and filed FR before the Court. The Court did not accept the FR and directed for further investigation then, it was found that the cassette in which recording of voice of the accused demanding bribe was missing and Mr. N.K. Parihar did not deposit the cassette in the Malkhana and neither it was handed over to the respondent No.1. Thereafter, criminal proceedings against the accused were dropped.

Main allegation against the respondent No.1 in the departmental enquiry was that he was negligent towards his duties. He had not made a demand of cassette which was seized and seizure memo was prepared from Mr. N.K. Parihar, earlier investigating Officer hence, the accused got benefit of acquittal.

The enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and found the charges proved against the respondent No.1. On the basis of aforesaid enquiry report, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed against the respondent No.1. He challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition No.18465/2012. The writ Court vide order

dated 24.08.2016 allowed the writ petition and held that the report of the enquiry Officer is arbitrary and no charge was proved against the respondent No.1.

In the present case, the charge against the respondent No.1 is that he was negligent because he had not taken any step to secure the Cassette. It is an admitted fact that the cassette was not deposited in Malkhana neither it was handed over to the respondent No.1 by earlier investigating Officer Mr. N.K. Parihar. There is no evidence to the effect that cassette was given to the respondent No.1. The aforesaid facts have been considered by the writ Court in detail. Apart from this, the writ Court has also considered the fact that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence and enquiry Officer has not considered the evidence properly at all. The enquiry report is non-speaking. It is a fact that against Mr. N.K. Parihar lesser punishment was imposed.

Counsel for the appellants/State has contended that the writ Court has not considered the fact that the respondent did not file an appeal. Even there was lacuna in the departmental enquiry, the writ Court has to remand the case back to the competent authority for proper enquiry.

We are not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants. The writ Court has considered the evidence properly and held that there was no evidence against the appellant for holding him guilty of misconduct. It is an admitted fact that the cassette was never handed over to the respondent No.1 by

earlier enquiry Officer hence, the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer that the appellant was negligent, are contrary to law. The writ Court has considered the merits of the case. The respondent No.1 did not file an appeal, has no relevance, when there is no sufficient evidence against the respondent No.1 hence, it is not necessary to remand the case back to the Department.

In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.