1 OA 200/00587/2017 Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Original Application No.200/00587/2017 Jabalpur, this Friday, the 05th day of January, 2018 HON’BLE MR. NAVIN TANDON, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Akhilesh Jha, S/o Shri D.K. Jha, age about 57 years, Occupation : Commandant 34th Battalion, District Dhar, r/o Commandant Bunglow, Near Indore Naka, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh – 452001. 9425127151 -Applicant (By Advocate – Shri Pankaj Dubey) V e r s u s 1. Union of India, Department of Personnel and Trainining, CGO Complex through its Secretary, New Delhi – 110001. 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal – 462001. 3. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Jhangirabd, Bhopal 462001 - Respondents (By Advocate – Shri Vijay Pandey for respondents Nos.2 & 3) (Date of reserving the order: 04.12.2017) O R D E R By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM. This Original Application has been preferred by the applicant challenging the impugned action and inaction of the respondents in issuing the impugned chargesheet dated 08.06.2016 to the applicant. The applicant had replied to the said chargesheet. Page 1 of 25 2 OA 200/00587/2017 However, no action has been taken by the respondents. Therefore, he has sought for the following reliefs: “8. Relief Sought: 1. To quash the impugned chargesheet dated 8/6/2016 (Annexure P-7) pending against the applicant. 2. To quash the order dated 20/2/2017 (Annexure A-10) passed by respondent no.2 denying the deputation to the applicant. 3. To grant the due benefit of confirmation at par with the similarly placed officers. 4. To grant all the consequential and financial benefits the applicant is bound to received. 5. Any other relief this Hon’ble Tribunal finds it fit and proper. 6. Cost may be awarded to the applicant.” 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in the year 1989 and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) in the year 2001. He was awarded Indian Police Services (IPS) in the year 2011. In the year 2014, the applicant was also awarded the President award. It is submitted that the applicant was never proceeded departmentally nor any proceedings initiated against him during the course of his service. 3. In the year June, 2012, the applicant was posted as Superintendent of Police (SP), Alirajpur and he remained as such until June, 2015. He was entrusted with various responsibilities with regard to the proper and controlled functioning of the District. Page 2 of 25 3 OA 200/00587/2017 On 03.06.2014, the SHO, Sorwa was investigating a crime related to the offence under section 307 IPC, in reference to which he proceeded to arrest the accused related to the subject crime at Village Dabri which was 20 Kms away from the related Police Station in the jungle. It is further submitted that the village Dawri is the most criminally active village in the District for which the SHO requested the applicant telephonically to send additional force to execute the arrest as at the relevant point of time, only four police personnel were available in the concerned Police Station. The applicant sent the desired police force to the SHO as the SHO was in-charge and supervisor of the entire event. 4. On 4.6.2014, the applicant learnt that one of the accused in the concerned crime, namely Jhingle had died in the custody of the Sorva Police at the Hospital. He, accordingly, directed that FIR be lodged against all the officials who were involved in the said incidence. The applicant also referred the matter to the CID for further stringent investigation. The CID conducted the entire investigation and filed the chargesheet on 12.4.2016 (Annexure A- 4). A magisterial enquiry was also conducted by the Judicial Magistrate on the custodial death of the deceased. After concluding the enquiry, the report was sent to the District and Sessions Judge vide the final report dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure Page 3 of 25 4 OA 200/00587/2017 A-5). In the magisterial enquiry, in its prargraph 44 and 45, some adverse remarks were passed against the applicant in regard to the incidence of the death of the deceased in the custody. The applicant being aggrieved by the findings of the magisterial enquiry, has challenged the same before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 02.03.2016 and 21.04.2016 (Annexure A-6 collectively), had expunged the remarks made in the paragraphs 44 and 45 of the judicial Enquiry Report. 5. On 15.06.2016, the respondents served a chargesheet to the applicant under Section 7(1)(b) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (herein after referred to as ‘1969 Rules’). The applicant submitted his reply dated 07.07.2016 (Annexure A-8) against the alleged charge denying all the allegations made against him. It is submitted that the entire allegation of the respondents is misconceived and bad in law as the CID has already carried out a fair and stringent enquiry and found nothing against the applicant. The alleged adverse remarks made against the applicant have also been expunged by the Hon’ble High Court. The respondents had also never brought on record any such document under pretext manifesting that the applicant had disobeyed his superiors at any point of time. Moreover, the Page 4 of 25 5 OA 200/00587/2017 impugned chargesheet has been issued after two years from the date of incidence when the applicant is under the zone of consideration for the next promotion. Till date, no enquiry officer has been appointment. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents, the applicant has earlier approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No.200/00747/2016, which was dismissed as premature granting liberty to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings, in case he is adversely affected by the decision of respondents on his reply dated 07.07.2016. 6. It has been submitted that now due to the alleged pending proceedings against the applicant, the services of the applicant have been adversely affected in the following manners: Selection grade of the applicant has been withheld. The NOC for deputation of the applicant has also been denied. Identically placed officials since the time of induction has been confirmed and the applicant has been denied confirmation due the pending proceedings. That, the adversity to the services of applicant is so much that the juniors of the applicant has been made the officiating DIG (Deputy Inspector General) and the applicant has been denied such benefit. It cannot be ruled that tomorrow the applicant may have to Page 5 of 25 6 OA 200/00587/2017 work as a Subordinate to his own junior or batchmate without any punishment against him. 7. It was further submitted that the pending proceeding against the applicant is also in violation of the circular dated 16.04.1987 (Annexure A-11), which prescribes for completing the departmental enquiry within one year. Though the applicant has made representation dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure A-12) to the respondents, but no action has been taken by them till date. 8. The respondents Nos.2 & 3 had filed the reply wherein they have raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the O.A on the following grounds: “(i) That, the applicant earlier approached this Hon’ble Court while filing the O.A. No.200-00747/2016, seeking the quashment of the charge sheet dated 08.06.2016 and this Hon’ble Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A giving liberty to the applicant to file the appropriate proceeding in case, he is adversely affected by the decision of the respondents on his reply dated 07.07.2016. It is submitted that the applicant in paragraph 5.6 of the application, has stated that the respondents have not proceeded to take into consideration the reply of the applicant. Further it is submitted that till date no decision has been taken on the representation of the applicant dated 07.07.2016 (Annexure P-8), therefore, this application is not maintainable as the liberty as granted by this Hon’ble Tribunal was subject to decision of the Page 6 of 25 7 OA 200/00587/2017 respondents on the reply of the applicant dated 07.07.2016 and therefore, this O.A is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. (ii) That, in the earlier O.A. No.747/2016 also the relief of quashment of charge sheet was sought, but this Hon’ble Tribunal has not passed any order on the said relief and the applicant has not challenged that order and filed the present Original Application seeking the similar reliefs, therefore, on this ground also the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. (iii) That, the charge sheet dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure P- 7) is pending and the D.E. yet to be finalized and therefore, the judicial review in the pending D.E. is not permissible until and otherwise there is apparent material available on record to show that there is perversity or illegality or the jurisdictional issue is there, but in the present case, no such circumstances are there and therefore, Original Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.” 9. In the main reply, it is submitted by the respondents that the applicant is facing departmental enquiry under the provision of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1968 Rules’).