http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4660 of 2006

PETITIONER: NARMADA PD. YADAV

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/11/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

       (@ SLP(C) No.14461 OF 2005)

    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. Banathia,  learned

    counsel  for the respondents.  We have 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.

           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."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

           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

    detaining  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

    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  in  O.A.   No.875/1994,   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 preferred the above civil  appeal

    in this Court.

           We  have already reproduced in paragraph supra  the

    charge  framed 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 opinion, the case on hand  is  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    case  of no evidence.  It is also a matter of record  that

    the  appellant  had an unblemished service  record  of  21

    years and the said factor has also not been considered  by

    the Authorities while imposing the penalty.

    We,  therefore,  have no hesitation in setting  aside  the

    punishment  inflicted  on  the appellant  and  allow  this

    appeal.   The  period  of two years mentioned  hereinabove

    will  be  treated  as the appellant was on  duty  as  Head

    Constable and the appellant will also be entitled  to  all

    the monetary benefits for the said period.

            In   the   result,  the  judgments  of  the   M.P.

    Administrative  Tribunal  and the  High  Court  stand  set

    aside.  The Civil Appeal is allowed.  No costs.