The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Superintendent of Police is empowered under the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations to initiate departmental proceedings against a Sub-Inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector, including a joint departmental inquiry, and to impose the punishment of withholding an increment. The Court was considering petitions filed by Lajja Shankar Mishra, who had joined the police service as a Sub-Inspector and was subsequently promoted as Inspector and then Deputy Superintendent of Police. The dispute concerned disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and another Assistant Sub-Inspector while they were posted at Chhatarpur Police Station. The High Court held that the authority of the Superintendent of Police to conduct such proceedings and impose the relevant punishment was provided by Regulation 221 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations.
A joint chargesheet had been issued against Mishra and the Assistant Sub-Inspector. After the departmental inquiry, three of the four charges against Mishra were found to be unproved, while one charge was found to be partially proved. The allegations against the Assistant Sub-Inspector were found to be untrue. Following the inquiry, the Superintendent of Police imposed the punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect on Mishra, while the Assistant Sub-Inspector was exonerated. Mishra challenged the disciplinary order before the Deputy Inspector General, but his appeal was rejected. He subsequently approached the Inspector General of Police, contending that his representation should have been treated as a revision rather than as a second appeal. That representation was also rejected on the ground that a second appeal was not maintainable.
Before the High Court, Mishra challenged the competence and jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police to impose the punishment. His argument was that, under the schedule appended to the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Rules, the Deputy Inspector General was the appointing authority for Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors. On that basis, he contended that the Superintendent of Police, not being the appointing authority, could not impose the disciplinary punishment. He also argued that the rejection of his representation by the Inspector General was legally unsustainable because Regulation 270 conferred revisional powers upon the Inspector General, including the power of suo motu revision and the power to examine an application made by an aggrieved employee.
Mishra further challenged the joint departmental inquiry on the ground that it could not have been conducted without prior sanction under the relevant service rules. The High Court examined the relationship between the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Rules and the Police Regulations and noted that the schedule to the Civil Service Rules itself specifies that Class III posts, including the posts of Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector, are governed by the Police Regulations. Consequently, the Court held that the provisions of the Civil Service Rules relied upon by Mishra did not govern the disciplinary action against the concerned police personnel.
The Court then considered Regulation 221 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. It found that this provision empowers the Superintendent of Police to impose upon Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors the punishments provided under Regulations 214 to 217. Regulation 214 specifically provides for withholding of increment as a punishment that may be imposed by the Superintendent of Police. On this basis, the High Court rejected Mishra's contention that the Superintendent of Police lacked authority to impose the punishment. The Court held that the disciplinary authority was specifically empowered under the Police Regulations and that the petitioner's challenge to the Superintendent's jurisdiction could not be accepted.
The High Court also considered the argument concerning the requirement of prior sanction for conducting a joint inquiry. The Court again relied upon Regulation 221 and observed that the Police Regulations expressly empower the Superintendent of Police to initiate departmental inquiries and to impose the punishment contemplated under Regulation 214. Consequently, the Court held that the objection regarding the requirement of sanction was also not sustainable. The fact that the disciplinary proceedings involved a joint inquiry against the Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector did not, in the circumstances considered by the Court, deprive the Superintendent of Police of the authority granted under the Police Regulations.
The Court therefore rejected the principal grounds raised by Mishra against the disciplinary proceedings. It found that the applicable regulatory framework gave the Superintendent of Police the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors and to impose the specified punishment. The Court consequently dismissed the petition filed by Mishra.
The matter was decided in Lajja Shankar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and the High Court's decision concerned the disciplinary authority of the Superintendent of Police under the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. The ruling establishes, in the context of the proceedings before the Court, that the Police Regulations govern the disciplinary matters concerning the relevant Class III police posts and that the powers specifically conferred upon the Superintendent of Police under Regulation 221 include initiating departmental inquiries and imposing the punishment of withholding an increment as provided under the applicable regulations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.