NARMADA PD. YADAV versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 03-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NARMADA PD. YADAV 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 3, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ .] 
B 
Service Law: 
Reversion-Po/ice head Constable charged of illegally detaining a 
person and demanding money from him/or release of his articles-Disciplinary C 
authority removing him from service-Appellate authority reverting him for 
two years-Held, this is a case of no evidence-There is absolutely no evidence 
to establish the charges-Orders of punishment set aside. 
A disciplinary action was taken against the appellant, a Head D 
Constable in the State Police, for illegally detaining a person and 
demanding bribe from him for release of his articles. The disciplinary 
authority ordered his removal but the appellate authority substituted the 
penalty by reverting him to the post of Constable for two years. The order 
was affirmed by the State Administrative Tribunal as also by the High 
Court. Aggrieved, the delinquent filed the present appeal. 
. E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: There is absolutely no evidence in regard to the demand of 
bribe or receipt of the same by the appellant. No satisfactory evidence was 
adduced to prove the charge in question. This is a case of no evidence. F 
Under such circumstances, the penalty imposed de-promoting him from 
the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable cannot at all be 
countenanced and is set aside. The Period of two years on reverted post 
will be treated as the appellant was on duty as Head Constable with 
consequential benefits. (367-A-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4660 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2004 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in W.P. No. 1572/2002. 
365 
G 
H 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
A.K. Chitale, Niraj Sharma and Vikrant Sharma For the Appellant. 
B.S. Banthia For the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
We have heard Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel for the 
appellant and Mr. B.S. Banthia, learned counsel for the respondents. We have 
C perused the charge framed against the appellant and the reports submitted by 
the Inquiry Officer, the orders of the Director General of Police, the M.P. 
Administrative Tribunal and also of the High Court. 
D 
E 
The charge framed against the appellant reads as follows: 
"On 25.1.1993 by detaining Shri Ram Singh s/o Deshraj Singh Parthar 
without any reason and keeping his license, cycle and Rs.50/- with 
him and demanding Rs.1000/- for giving the item back and receiving 
the money. In this way you have given utmost disrespect towards. 
your duty and by showing corrupt behaviour you have proved yourself 
not fit for the department." 
A perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report would clearly go to show that 
no independent witness had been examined to prove the demand and taking 
money by the appellant in his hand nor is there any evidence of detainil)g the 
applicant in a half constructed house. When the matter was taken on appeal 
before the Director General of Police, he reduced the-penalty of dismissal 
F given by the Superintendent of Police and reinstated the accused and also 
reverted the appellant to the post of Constable from that of Head Constable 
as a penalty for a period of two years from 16.11.1993 to 16.11.1995. 
Aggrieved against the imposition of the said penalty, the appellant preferred 
original application before the Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 875/ 
G 1994, which affirmed the penalty imposed by the Deputy Inspector General 
of Police and the Director General of Police. 
The matter was taken to the High Court by the appellant by filing a writ 
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court affirmed 
the orders passed by all the other Authorities. Being aggrieved, the appellant 
H preferred the above civil appeal in this Court. 
NARMADA PD. YADAV v. STATEOFM.P. [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 
367 
We have already reproduced in paragraph supra the charge framed A 
against the appellant. There is absolutely no evidence in regard to the demand 
of bribe of Rs.1,000/- or receipt of the same by the appellant. No satisfactory 
evidence was adduced to prove the charge in question. Under such 
circumstances, the penalty imposed by the Director General of Police de-
promoting him from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable 
cannot at all be countenanced. In our opi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.