The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging dismissal from police service. The court held that the departmental authority provided ample opportunities for hearing, which the petitioner failed to avail, rendering interference under Article 226 unnecessary.
The petition challenging the dismissal order and appeal order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
~T^
•^I^SJ f,S6'l|D5 -Y.-
| IN THE STATE Petttioner- |
ADMINISTRAT O.A. No« Prakash |
IVE TRIBUNAL AT JABALPUR• 6 —-"T'TXT °i^^^31 J'J^2/95. Chand Jain s/o Shri ^^^ff^&^ |
|---|---|---|
| ag^d abo | ut years^r Constable |
|
| No» 114^ Raipur ( |
Radio-Station - Police Deptt^ since removed from service). - V e r s u s - |
|
| Respondents~ | !• | State of M^P« through the Secretary^ Ministry of Home Affairs, Vallabh Bhavan^ Bhopal• |
| 2. | In spector General @f Police^ S^S^tssB |
|
| Headquarters^ Bhopal ( M•P^ ) <, |
||
| 3. | Sr Suprintendent of Police(Radios)^ M^P, Bhopal. |
|
| 4. | Suprintendent of Police ( ^adios)^ | |
| Bhilai Zone, Bhilai ( M.P.). |
Details of applicQtion-
••'^
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR
WPSNo.1364 of 2005
Prakash Chand Jain
-" Petitioner
Versus State And Ors. —-Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate For State Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Order On Board
11/01/2017
Heard.
o
Senior Superintendent of Police (Radio), Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal by which, major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.06.95.
^.. ^. -• /;/ ^. "''£^^^ ^i:'^/
forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police (Radio), Bhopal and in this manner without affording him any opportunity of hearing, the penalty was also imposed vide order dated 07.04.95. Thus, it is urged, the petitioner throughout the enquiry was never afforded due and proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order of penalty was rendered illegal. It is next submitted that when the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority did not appreciate the ground raised by the petitioner in their proper perspective and failed to consider that before imposition of penalty of extreme nature, the petitioner ought to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
^2-
officer which were duly considered by the disciplinary authonty, the petitioner neither submitted any application for grant of leave nor submitted any medical certificate along with any such application. He being a member of disciplined force was duty bound to first appty 'for grant of leave and proceed on leave only upon due sanction and not otherwise.
oft
____--—-—-
Sd/ManindraMohanShrivastava Jude
Rekha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the departmental enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice due to the petitioner's failure to avail opportunities of hearing.
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the dismissal order.
Whether the petitioner's illness and family circumstances warrant a sympathetic approach in this case.
Prakash Chand Jain
State of M.P.
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
