MP HC | Departmental enquiry quashed where no alleged act of heinous nature committed

Madhya Pradesh High Court: S.C. Sharma, J. contemplated a petition filed against the initiation of the Departmental enquiry against the said petitioner and was noted that the ‘case certainly reflects an episode in which a young tribal girl was harassed for almost five years.’

Facts to the extent necessary are, petitioner was appointed as a Sub Inspector, in the year 2007; she was posted at various districts and in 2013 was deputed for election duty. In the course of her duty, she stopped an election observer IAS officer’s vehicle; it also carried a red beacon over it. Petitioner contended that the officer was offended by the act and was infuriated; officer misbehaved with her and also submitted a report against her for misconduct. Eventually, Secretary of Home Department wrote a letter to the State Election Commission that no case is made against the election observer (IAS).

Petitioner contended that, she submitted a report to the superiors and brought it to their notice that the alleged officer has abused and mistreated her. Following which she was on the very same day of incident transferred to a different district. Petitioner submitted that she was demoralized being a young girl, insulted and humiliated, which caused her mental agony and she resigned. She had also reported the matter to State Women Commission regarding her insult and outrage. The Commission directed Superintended of Police to register a case against the officer i.e. election observer. The petitioner stated that despite the reminder from Commission no FIR was lodged and no order was passed by the alleged respondents in respect of resignation, which was not accepted. She stated that no posting order was given to the petitioner and in 2014 the Superintendent of Police, informed the Commission that no case is made out against the Election Observer.

The respondent contended that he had submitted a detailed report to the Inspector General of Police, about the alleged transfer of the petitioner. He also ordered an inquiry and directed the matter to Additional Superintendent. The respondent further contended that in reply to the various complaints of the petitioner, a proper inquiry in the matter was conducted.

The State Women Commission intervened and forwarded the matter to Chief Election Commission after recording the statements of the petitioner. However, no case was registered against officer. It was observed by the alleged respondents that petitioner is not attending her duties. Aggrieved by such responses, denial of resignation and inaction to provide a relevant place of posting the petitioner filed a writ in the proper Court.

The Court observed that, charge sheet was recorded and revealed, that the petitioner, after she was attached to the office of Superintendent of Police in 2013, had not joined duties at the place of posting and no other charge was levelled against her. The Court further noted another important aspect of the case was, that the respondents have passed an order which categorically stated that request of resignation was rejected.

The Court issued an interim order which stayed the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Court further observed that no place of posting was provided to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Petitioner was allowed to join her duties. It was held that the departmental inquiry was not related to the incident that provoked the petitioner to resign, but regarding her absence from duty. The resignation was treated as withdrawn. Court carefully went through the charge sheet and it was not a case where the petitioner was involved in committing a crime in respect of some act relating to moral turpitude, embezzlement or any other heinous offence. Mere case where the petitioner was not provided a posting order, in spite of her repeated request and charge sheet has been issued for not joining the duty. However, the Court not granted back wages to the petitioner.[Amrita Solanki v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 869, decided on 15-05-2019]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.