IN THE HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (S)
PETITIONER : SHAILENDRA
TIWARI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
I N D E X
|
S. No.
|
Description
of documents
|
Annexure
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
Index
|
|
1 to 3
|
|
2.
|
DECLARATION
(Under Rule
25 of Chapter X)
|
|
4
|
|
3.
|
Chronology of Events
|
|
5 to 8
|
|
4.
|
Memo of Writ petition with affidavit
|
|
9 to 39
|
|
5.
|
List of documents.
|
|
40 & 41
|
|
6.
|
Copy of the Direct
Order dated 23.10.2013
|
P-1
|
42
|
|
7.
|
Copy of the note sheet
dated 01.01.2014
|
P-2
|
43
|
|
8.
|
Copy of the note sheet
dated 06. 01.2014
|
P-3
|
44
|
|
9.
|
Copy of the suspension
Order dated 10.01.2014
|
P-4
|
45
|
|
10.
|
Copy of the Application
for voluntary retirement dated 10.01.2014
|
P-5
|
46
|
|
11.
|
Copy of the Representation
dated 15.01.2014
|
P-6
|
47 TO 49
|
|
12.
|
Copy of the Order dated
30.01.2014 issued by respondent No. 3 according sanction of voluntary
retirement
|
P-7
|
50
|
|
13.
|
Copy of the application
dated 05.02.2014 for withdrawal of Voluntary retirement application
|
P-8
|
51
|
|
14.
|
Copy of the Order dated
28.02.2014 issued by respondent No. 3 allowing the application dated
05.02.2014 for withdrawal of Voluntary retirement application
|
P-9
|
52
|
|
15.
|
Copy of the Order dated
01.08.2014 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 10765 of
2014 (S)
|
P-10
|
53 TO 56
|
|
16.
|
Copy of the Entire
Charge sheet dated 02.04.2014
|
P-11
|
57 TO 66
|
|
17.
|
Copy of the written
reply dated 11.04.2017 together with statement
|
P-12
|
67 TO 70
|
|
18.
|
Copy of the
confidential communication dated 16.12.2014
|
P-13
|
71 TO 73
|
|
19.
|
Copy of the
representation dated 00.03.2015
|
P-14
|
74 TO 80
|
|
20.
|
Copy of the ACR’s for
the year 2009
|
P-15
|
81 TO 86
|
|
21.
|
Copy of the ACR’s for
the year 2010
|
P-16
|
87 & 88
|
|
22.
|
Copy of the ACR’s for
the year 2011
|
P-17
|
89 TO 94
|
|
23.
|
Copy of the ACR’s for
the year 2012
|
P-18
|
95 TO 99
|
|
24.
|
Copy of the ACR’s for
the year 2013
|
P-19
|
100 TO 104
|
|
25.
|
Copy of the
representation dated 08.07.2015 before the respondent No. 2
|
P-20
|
105 & 106
|
|
26.
|
Copy of the list dated
30.03.2015 of all Rewards/ penalties obtained through the provisions Section
6 (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005
|
P-21
|
107
|
|
27.
|
Copy of the final
report dated 24.02.2015
|
P-22
|
108 TO 119
|
|
28.
|
Copy of the show cause
notice dated 04.03.2015 (wrongly typed as 04.03.2014)
|
P-23
|
120
|
|
29.
|
Copy of the reply dated
11.03.2015
|
P-24
|
121 TO 132
|
|
30.
|
Copy of the impugned
Order dated 25.03.2015 in relation to withholding of increment
|
P-25
|
133 & 134
|
|
31.
|
Copy of the
representation
|
P-26
|
135 & 136
|
|
32.
|
Copy of the impugned
Order dated 10.06.2015 passed by respondent No. 2
|
P-27
|
137 TO 138
|
|
33.
|
Copy of the impugned
Order dated 23.05.2016 passed by respondent No. 1
|
P-28
|
139
|
|
34.
|
Copy
of the impugned Order dated 03.11.2016 passed by respondent No. 2
|
P-29
|
140
|
|
35.
|
VAKALATNAMA
|
|
141
|
|
36.
|
COURT FEE
|
|
142
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (S)
PETITIONER : SHAILENDRA TIWARI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
DECLARATION
(Under Rule 25
of Chapter X)
The copies as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Rules, 2008, have served upon
Clerk of office of the Advocate
General for Madhya Pradesh at PM on 2017
in Jabalpur.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF MADHY PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (S)
PETITIONER : SHAILENDRA TIWARI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
24.02.1987
|
Petitioner was
appointed on 24.02.1987 as Sub-Inspector through direct recruitment.
|
|
2.
|
06.08.2010
|
Looking to his
meritorious career he was given promotion on 06.08.2010 to the post of
Inspector.
|
|
3.
|
31.03.2010
|
Petitioner belongs to
Non-gazette Executive officer category and getting pay scale of Rs. 15,600/ -
Rs. 39,100/ + Rs. 5,400/- as on 31.03.2010.
|
|
4.
|
23.10.2013
|
Vide Direct Order dated
23.10.2013 the respondent No. 3 directed the respondent No. 5 to fill up the
vacancies looking to upcoming Legislative Assembly and Lokshabha Elections
and submit a memorandum within a week.
|
|
5.
|
01.01.2014
|
A note sheet dated
01.01.2014 was moved by the petitioner in respect actual working strength/
post sanctions at District Special Establishment, Raisen which reflects that
out of 16 sanctioned post there were only 6 persons performing the duties.
Petitioner also sought deployment of 2 Constables so that during remaining period
SI Bihari Ram Yadav, they would be trained and work would not be hampered in
his absence.
|
|
6.
|
06. 01.2014
|
Another note sheet
dated 06.01.2014 was issued by the Establishment section which reflects
seeking transfer of SI Jainendra Dubey and Constable Sanjiv Pratap Singh.
|
|
7.
|
10.01.2014
|
While working as
Inspector in charge, District Special Establishment, Raisen petitioner was
put under suspension vide Order dated 10.01.2014.
|
|
8.
|
10.01.2014
|
It is humbly submitted
that some note sheet was placed before the respondent No. 4 by the InCharge
of District Special Cell, pointing out the requirement of posting of persons
and on that day, the petitioner was called in the chamber of respondent No.
4. The petitioner pointed out his difficulties in assignment of special
duties and contended that looking to his illness; it would not be possible
for him to discharge such duties. However, since his prayers were not
considered, he gave a notice of voluntary retirement on the very same date,
which subsequently withdrawn.
|
|
9.
|
15.01.2014
|
This enraged the
respondent No. 4, who placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated
10.01.2014. A detailed representation against the said suspension order was
made by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3, which was pending for
consideration.
|
|
10.
|
30.01.2014
|
Vide Order dated 30.01.2014 the respondent No. 3
accorded sanction of voluntary retirement of petitioner w.e.f. 10.04.2014.
|
|
|
05.02.2014
|
Petitioner submitted
that he had not submitted the application for voluntary retirement. It was a
prayer for transferring him from District Special Establishment Raisen to
some other place within Hoshangabad Range. The application was made following
the outcome of the mental torture given by respondent No. 4.
|
|
11.
|
28.02.2014
|
Vide Order dated
28.02.2014 the respondent No. 3 was pleased to kind enough in allowing the
application dated 05.02.2014 for withdrawal of Voluntary retirement
application and cancelled its earlier order dated 30.01.2014.
|
|
12.
|
02.04.2014
|
It is humbly submitted that after expiry of period of 45
days, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2014 by the
respondent No. 4 only on the basis of preliminary enquiry report given by the
Additional superintendent of Police, Raisen. The petitioner had submitted his
reply, but no action was taken.
|
|
13.
|
11.04.2017
|
If the Rules were made
applicable, then the suspension order dated 10.01.2014 stands automatically
vacated because of not issuing the charge sheet within a period of 45 days.
Petitioner by submitting a written reply to each of the article of charges
together with allegations leveled against him.
|
|
14.
|
16.07.2014
|
The power to suspended
the petitioner in such circumstances was not available to the respondent No.
4 therefore the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India forming subject matter of Writ
Petition No. 10765 of 2014 (S).
|
|
15.
|
01.08.2014
|
Order dated 01.08.2014
passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 10765 of 2014 (S)
|
|
16.
|
16.12.2014
|
The then respondent No. 3 was so much having malice his
mind towards petitioner that he gave “D” in Annual Confidential Report of the
petitioner. The same was communicated by the officials of respondent No. 2
through the confidential communication dated 16.12.2014.
|
|
17.
|
00.03.2015
|
Petitioner made a representation against the adverse
entries in ACR while submitting that he was awarded 168 Rewards 06 small
penalties during 26 years service and during the year 2009, 2010, 2011, &
2012 the petitioner was awarded “B” in the ACRs and in the year 2013 he was
awarded “A”.
|
|
18.
|
10.06.2015
|
Petitioner’s appeal against the punishment was rejected
by the respondent No. 2
|
|
19.
|
08.07.2015
|
Petitioner made a
further representation before the respondent No. 2 against the adverse
entries in ACR of the year 2014.
|
|
20.
|
30.03.2015
|
Petitioner also
submitted a copy all Rewards/ penalties obtained through the provisions
Section 6 (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
|
|
21.
|
24.02.2015
|
A final report dated
24.02.2015 in terms of conclusions of departmental enquiry was prepared by
the respondent No. 4.
|
|
22.
|
04.03.2015
|
Petitioner was asked to submit reply to show cause
notice within a period of 7 days through show cause notice dated 04.03.2015
(wrongly typed as 04.03.2014)
|
|
23.
|
11.03.2015
|
Petitioner submitted
his reply to show cause notice dated 04.03.2015.
|
|
24.
|
25.03.2015
|
Vide Order dated
25.03.2015 respondent No. 3 passed an order whereby and whereunder directing
to withhold 1 increment for a period of 1 year without cumulative effect and
treating the period of suspension from 10.01.2014 to 23.08.2014 (total 226
days) leave without pay.
|
|
25.
|
|
Petitioner made a
representation before the respondent No. 2 and submitted that it would be
injustice to treat the period of suspension from 10.01.2014 to 23.08.2014
(total 226 days) leave without pay.
|
|
26.
|
23.05.2016
|
Petitioner’s
representation was rejected by the Government vide impugned order dated
23.05.2016 passed by respondent No. 1
|
|
27.
|
03.11.2016
|
His representation regarding
adverse entries in the ACR was also rejected by respondent No. 2
|
|
28.
|
|
Petitioner preferred a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against action
on the part of the respondent authorities in imposing minor penalty of
withholding of 1 increment without cummulative effect for a period of 1 year,
before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
Format No. 7
(Chapter X, Rule 23)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (S)
PETITIONER : SHAILENDRA TIWARI, Aged
about 58 years, Son of Mr. Ved Prakash Tiwari, Inspector, State
Situation Room, Police Head Quarter, Jehangirabad, Bhopal District – Bhopal (Madhya
Pradesh), JIO : 79744-78155, e-MAIL : shai.tiwari15@gmail.com
Versus
RESPONDENTS
:1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
Through
the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Ministry, Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal - 462
002, (Madhya Pradesh).
2. Director General of
Police, Police Head Quarter, Jehangirabad, Bhopal - 462 008, (Madhya Pradesh),
Phone : 0755-244 3500 Fax : 0755-244 3501 E-mail : dgpmp@mppolice.gov.in.
3. Inspector General of
Police, Hoshangabad Range, District Hoshangabad (Madhya Pradesh). Phone : 07574
- 25 0123, E-Mail : ig_hoshangabad@mppolice.gov.in
4. Superintendent of
Police, District Raisen (Madhya Pradesh) Phone : 07482- 22 3204, E-mail : sp_raisen@mppolice.gov.in
5. Mr.
Kunj Bihari Sharma, The then Superintendent of Police, Raisen, District –
Raisen (Madhya Pradesh) Presently posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Rural Bhopal, District – Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India).
1. Particulars of the Cause/ Order
against which the petition is made:
|
S. No.
|
Date of Order /
Notification/ Circular / Policy/ Decision Etc. :
|
Passed in (Case Or File
Number) :
|
Passed by (Name and
Designation of the Court, Authority, Tribunal Etc.)
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
|
1.
|
10.01.2014 (Annexure P-4)
|
Pu. A./ Rai/ Steno/ 24/ 2014
|
Mr. Kunj Bihari Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Raisen (Madhya
Pradesh)
|
|
2.
|
25.03.2015 (Annexure P-25)
|
PU MA NI/ HO ZO/ NI SA/
VI ZO/A. AADESH/ -06-B/15
|
Mr. Satish Kumar Saksena, Inspector General of Police,
Hoshangabad Range, Hoshangabad, (Madhya Pradesh)
|
|
3.
|
10.06.2015 (Annexure P-27)
|
Pu. Mu./ 23/ B-1/
(62-15)/ 15/ 1152
|
Mr. Surendra Singh, Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh,
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
|
|
4.
|
23.05.2016 (Annexure P-28)
|
1733/ 6572/ 2015/ B-4/
Two
|
Ms. Kamla Upadhyay, Additional Secretary, Home Department,
Ministry, Bhopal, (Madhya Pradesh)
|
|
5.
|
03.11.2016 (Annexure P-29)
|
PU MU/ 1/ ACR CELL/ 10/
686/ 16
|
Additional Inspector General of Police (Administration) for
Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Bhopal, (Madhya Pradesh)
|
(4)
Subject –
matter in brief: By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble High Court by calling in question the legality, validity, propriety and
correctness of the action on the part of the respondent authorities in imposing
minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a
period of 1 year and directed to determine the period of suspension since
10.01.2014 to 23.08.2014 (total 226 days) from leave of petitioner.
2. A declaration that no proceeding
on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court,
Authority or Tribunal, if instituted, the Status or result thereof, along with
copy of the Order:
Petitioner
on an earlier occasion assailed the Order of suspension before this Hon’ble
High Court forming the Subject matter of Writ Petition No. 10735 of 2014 (S)
which was disposed off vide Order dated 01.08.2014 Annexure P-10.
3. Details of the remedied
exhausted :
The
petitioner declares that he has availed all statutory and other remedies.
4. Delay, if any, in filing the
petition and explanation therefor
Against
the order imposing penalty of withholding of 1 increment for a period of 1 year
without cumulative effect, the petitioner raised number of representation and
appeal to the respondent No. 2 so also a review before the respondent No. 1
which resulted into rejection of all mercy petitions. From pillar to post
petitioner was knocking every door for the redressal of his grievances but at
the end petitioner surrenders himself before this Hon’ble High Court to seek
justice as litigation is the last
resort when governments completely disregard the rule of law.
5. Facts of the
Case :
1.
Petitioner is a
peace loving national of India and entitled for the all the benefit and
fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. Respondents
are the instrumentality of state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble High Court.
2. Petitioner was appointed on 24.02.1987 as Sub-Inspector through
direct recruitment. Looking to his meritorious career he was given promotion on
06.08.2010 to the post of Inspector. Petitioner belongs to Non-gazette
Executive officer category and getting pay scale of Rs. 15,600/ - Rs. 39,100/ +
Rs. 5,400/- as on 31.03.2010. Petitioner is a Class – II, Gazetted employee of
Madhya Pradesh Police of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh.
3. Vide Direct Order dated 23.10.2013 the respondent No. 3 directed the
respondent No. 5 to fill up the vacancies looking to upcoming Legislative Assembly
and Lokshabha Elections and submit a memorandum within a week. Copy of the
Direct Order dated 23.10.2013 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-1.
4. A note sheet dated 01.01.2014 was moved by the petitioner in
respect actual working strength/ post sanctions at District Special
Establishment, Raisen which reflects that out of 16 sanctioned post there were
only 6 persons performing the duties. Petitioner also sought deployment of 2
Constables so that during remaining period SI Bihari Ram Yadav, they would be
trained and work would not be hampered in his absence. Copy of the note sheet
dated 01.01.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2. Another note sheet dated 06.01.2014 was issued
by the Establishment section which reflects seeking transfer of SI Jainendra
Dubey and Constable Sanjiv Pratap Singh. Copy of the note sheet dated 06.
01.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-2. A table showing actual working strength/ post sanctions at
District Special Establishment, Raisen is given hereinbelow :
|
S. NO.
|
NAME OF POSTS
|
sanctioned post
|
Working strength
|
Remarks
|
|
1.
|
Inspector
|
01
|
01
|
01
|
|
2.
|
Sub Inspector
|
04
|
02
|
(1) Sub- Inspector Bihari Ram
Yadav was going to retire on 24.02.2014 (2) Sub –Inspector Ganga Ram Yadav was
going to be promoted in the month of January/ February, 2014
|
|
3.
|
Assistant Sub-Inspector
|
02
|
01
|
01
|
|
4.
|
Assistant Sub-Inspector (A)
|
02
|
NIL
|
NIL
|
|
5.
|
Reporter
|
01
|
NIL
|
NIL
|
|
6.
|
Head Constable
|
04
|
01
|
Head Constable Rakesh Rohar
was assigned work at Obedullaganj
|
|
7.
|
Constable
|
02
|
01
|
01
|
|
|
Total
|
16
|
06
|
03
|
5. While working as Inspector in charge, District Special
Establishment, Raisen petitioner was put under suspension vide Order dated
10.01.2014. Copy of the suspension Order dated 10.01.2014 is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-4. It is
humbly submitted that some note sheet was placed before the respondent No. 4 by
the InCharge of District Special Cell, pointing out the requirement of posting
of persons and on that day, the petitioner was called in the chamber of respondent
No. 4. The petitioner pointed out his difficulties in assignment of special
duties and contended that looking to his illness; it would not be possible for
him to discharge such duties. However, since his prayers were not considered,
he gave a notice of voluntary retirement on the very same date, which
subsequently withdrawn. Copy of the Application for voluntary retirement dated
10.01.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-5. This enraged the respondent No. 4, who placed the petitioner under
suspension by order dated 10.01.2014. A detailed representation against the
said suspension order was made by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3,
which was pending for consideration. Copy of the Representation dated
15.01.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-6. Vide Order dated 30.01.2014
the respondent No. 3 accorded sanction of voluntary retirement of petitioner
w.e.f. 10.04.2014. Copy of the Order dated 30.01.2014 issued by respondent No.
3 according sanction of voluntary retirement is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-7. Petitioner
submitted that he had not submitted the application for voluntary retirement.
It was a prayer for transferring him from District Special Establishment Raisen
to some other place within Hoshangabad Range. The application was made
following the outcome of the mental torture given by respondent No. 4. Copy of
the application dated 05.02.2014 for withdrawal of Voluntary retirement
application is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-8. Vide Order dated 28.02.2014 the respondent No.
3 was pleased to kind enough in allowing the application dated 05.02.2014 for
withdrawal of Voluntary retirement application and cancelled its earlier order
dated 30.01.2014. Copy of the Order dated 28.02.2014 issued by respondent No. 3
allowing the application dated 05.02.2014 for withdrawal of Voluntary retirement
application is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-9.
6. It is humbly submitted that after expiry of period of 45 days, the
charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2014 by the respondent No. 4
only on the basis of preliminary enquiry report given by the Additional superintendent
of Police, Raisen. The petitioner had submitted his reply, but no action was
taken. The power to suspended the petitioner in such circumstances was not
available to the respondent No. 4 therefore the petitioner was constrained to
file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forming
subject matter of Writ Petition No. 10765 of 2014 (S). Copy of the Order dated
01.08.2014 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 10765 of 2014
(S) is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-10.
7. It is humbly submitted that the provisions of suspension are separately
made in the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the
Regulations, for brevity). As per the amendment made in the Regulations, power
of Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police as prescribed
under Regulation 221 (d) of said Regulations can be exercised only in circumstances
when a departmental enquiry is pending in respect of misconduct of any such
employee. If that provisions is read with other provisions made in the
Regulations 247 of the Regulations, it would be clear that suspension is not to
be made generally, but only in exceptional circumstances in all cases in which
a serious departmental charge which may result in imposition of penalty of
dismissal, is brought against a police officer. However, the Order of
suspension simply says that the petitioner is suspended because of his misbehavior
and in discipline conduct in the office. It is nowhere said that the
departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner.
8. It is humbly submitted that the fact further remains that for the
police officers upto the rank of Inspector onwards, the procedure as laid down
under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as Rules, for short) are made applicable.
The suspension is prescribed under Rule 9 of the said Rules, wherein specific
provisions is made under sub-rule (2-a) of Rule 9 of the Rules aforesaid, in
respect of issuance of charge sheet. From the description of reason of
suspension, it is clear that it was owing to indiscipline and misconduct of the
petitioner for which a departmental enquiry was required to be conducted and
that being so, it was necessary to issue him a charge sheet within 45 days. Believing
that the charge sheet was not required to be issued to the petitioner within 45
days from the date of suspension as nothing is prescribed in that respect under
the Regulations, it appears that immediate action was not taken for issuance of
charge sheet and the same had been issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2014. Copy
of the Entire Charge sheet dated 02.04.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-11. If the Rules were
made applicable, then the suspension order dated 10.01.2014 stands
automatically vacated because of not issuing the charge sheet within a period
of 45 days. Petitioner by submitting a written reply to each of the article of
charges together with allegations leveled against him. Copy of the written
reply dated 11.04.2017 together with statement is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-12.
9. The then respondent No. 3 was so much having malice his mind
towards petitioner that he gave “D” in Annual Confidential Report of the
petitioner. The same was communicated by the officials of respondent No. 2
through the confidential communication dated 16.12.2014. Copy of the confidential
communication dated 16.12.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-13. Petitioner made a
representation against the adverse entries in ACR while submitting that he was
awarded 168 Rewards 06 small penalties during 26 years service and during the
year 2009, 2010, 2011, & 2012 the petitioner was awarded “B” in the ACRs
and in the year 2013 he was awarded “A”. Copy of the representation dated
00.03.2015 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-14. Copy of the ACR’s for the year 2009 to 2013 is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-15 to P-19. All the Superintendent of
Police have given good remarks as shown in the table below :
|
S. N.
|
PLACE OF POSTING
|
NAME OF SUPRINTENDENT
OF POLICE
|
REMARKS
|
|
1.
|
Ujjain
|
Mr. R. K. Tripathi
Mr. S. P. Gupta,
Mr. Vijay Kumar Shukla
Mr. M. R. Krishna
|
All the superintendent of Police have given “Good” where as the
then Superintendent of Police awarded “D” in the ACR due to malice in his
mind and ill will.
|
|
2.
|
Raisen
|
Mr. Sanjiv Singh
Mr. H. S. Panwar
Mr. Mukesh Jain
|
|
|
3.
|
Shivpuri
|
Mr. Arun Pratap Singh
Mr. Mahendra Singh
Tomar
Mr. R. P. Singh
Mr. R. S. Meena
|
|
|
4.
|
Vidisha
|
Mr. Milind Kanaskar
Mr. Ved Prakash Sharma
Mr. M. K. Mudgal
Mr. Anant Kumar
Mr. R. P. Shrivastava
Mr. Anil Kumar
Mr. R. L. Prajapati
|
|
|
5.
|
Sehore
|
Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Mr. K. D. Parashar
|
|
|
6.
|
Raisen
|
Mr. I. P. Kulshrestha
Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla
Mr. Kunj Bihari Sharma
|
10.
Petitioner made
a further representation before the respondent No. 2 against the adverse
entries in ACR of the year 2014. Copy of the representation dated 08.07.2015
before the respondent No. 2 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-20. Petitioner also
submitted a copy all Rewards/ penalties obtained through the provisions Section
6 (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005. Copy of the list dated 30.03.2015 of
all Rewards/ penalties obtained through the provisions Section 6 (1) of Right
to Information Act, 2005 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-21.
11.
A final report
dated 24.02.2015 in terms of conclusions of departmental enquiry was prepared
by the respondent No. 4. Copy of the final report dated 24.02.2015 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-22.
Petitioner was asked to submit reply to show cause notice within a period of 7
days. Copy of the show cause notice dated 04.03.2015 (wrongly typed as
04.03.2014) is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-23. Petitioner submitted his reply to show cause
notice dated 04.03.2015. Copy of the reply dated 11.03.2015 is filed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-24.
12.
Vide Order
dated 25.03.2015 respondent No. 3 passed an order whereby and whereunder
directing to withhold 1 increment for a period of 1 year without cumulative
effect and treating the period of suspension from 10.01.2014 to 23.08.2014
(total 226 days) leave without pay. Copy of the impugned Order dated 25.03.2015
is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-25. Petitioner made a representation before the respondent No. 2 and
submitted that it would be injustice to treat the period of suspension from
10.01.2014 to 23.08.2014 (total 226 days) leave without pay. Copy of the representation
is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-26. Vide order dated 10.06.2015 the respondent No. 2 rejected the
petitioner’s appeal. Copy of the impugned Order dated 10.06.2015 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-27.
Petitioner’s representation was rejected by the Government vide order dated
23.05.2016. Copy of the impugned Order dated 23.05.2016 passed by respondent
No. 1 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-28. His representation regarding adverse entries in the ACR was also
rejected. Copy of the impugned Order dated 03.11.2016 is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-29. Hence this petition on following grounds
amongst the others
6. Grounds urged :
A. Because the respondent authorities failed to appreciate that prior
to issuing of the impugned suspension order, the petitioner had never faced any
departmental proceeding nor he had had been suspended in his whole life career
of 26 years of service.
B. Because the Order of suspension was to be issued by the employer
and in case if it is not been issued by the employer, it has be confirmed by
the employer. But in the case in hand it has been never been confirmed by the employer
and the copy of the suspension was sent only to ASP & RI which were the
sub-ordinate official of SP.
C. The ASP Mr. Mukesh Vaishya was present at the time of incident, so
also he was the eye witness of whole incident. The Respondent No. 4 ought not
have directed the ASP to conduct the preliminary inquiry looking to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as it is voilative of principal of
natural justice, the preliminary enquiry ought to have conducted by the person
who was unaware of incident/ not interested person as well not sub-ordinate of
respondent No. 5 who was under duress, threat and pressure therefore the whole
procedure is vitiated in the eye of Law.
D. Respondent No. 5 being complainant himself could not have
conducted the departmental enquiry and/ or issued charge sheet. When the
petitioner raised the objection in this regard, the matter was transferred to
respondent No. 3 but the charges and preliminary inquiry report was the same,
the respondent No. 3 could have issued a fresh charge sheet and fresh
preliminary inquiry, ought to have been made.
E. Because the respondents
authorities failed to appreciate that in catena of decisions the Apex Court has
held that the writing of ACR of an employee is an important job because even if
it is not to be treated as a punishment if an adverse entry is recorded in the
ACR, but it has to be kept in mind that the grading in the ACRs sometime comes
in the ways of the persons like petitioner in getting benefits in the service.
These aspects were deeply considered by the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt
vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 as also in the case
of State of Haryana vs. Shri P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police
and another, AIR 1987 SC 1201. It is to be seen that in case there
was a dispute with respect to the ACR of a particular year, the
respondents-authorities could have seen the ACR of one year preceeding the
years under consideration. If that would have been done, the claim of the
petitioner would have been considered in more appropriate manner.
F. The period of suspension was directed to be computed on the leave
the petitioner and the feg end of the retirement petitioner is unable to encash
it. It is settled principle of law the when minor punishment is imposed the
period of suspension is required to be treated as period on duty, when the
petitioner raised a voice in this regard the respondent No. 3 issued a circular
that the police officials are governed by the Police regulations and not by the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 although the petitioner was charged under Rule 3 (b) of
CCS (Conduct) Rule 1965.
G. ACR of petitioner was degraded to “D” because of the malafide of
intention of respondent No. 5 without assigning any reason. It is well settled principles
of Law that the petitioner after getting “A” in the previous year of ACR the respondent
NO. 5 could not have given “D” in the subsequent year. At worst he could have
given “B”. The promotion of petitioner is due in this year and his previous 5
years ACR is required to be looked into but because of adverse entries in the
year 2014 he would be unfit for the promotion. Likewise selection grade is due on
21.12.2017 after successful completion of 30 years of service and petitioner is
also going to deprive of it.
H. Because the respondent authorities failed to appreciate that they
have not considered the defence of the petitioner and proceeded to punish the
petitioner without evaluating his defence or explanation. Even in a proceeding
under Rule 16 the inquiry contemplated under the statutory rule has to be done
showing application of mind which includes assessment of defence of the
employee its consideration in accordance with the law and thereafter recording
of reasons either for accepting of the defence or its rejection. It is only
after exercising such a process, the order of punishment under Rule 16 of the
Rules can be imposed. Any punishment even a minor one has adverse effect on the
career of an employee and therefore a finding of guilt has to be recorded after
considering the defence and explanation of the delinquent employee. This is a
mandatory requirement and without considering this aspect if any order of
punishment is passed the same becomes unsustainable under the law. In this case
there is no assessment or consideration of the explanation of the employee,
with regard to the delay due to non-availability of witness etc. and in an
illegal or casual manner he is held guilty of the misconduct without
considering his explanation. This is not permissible and therefore on this
count, the entire action stand vitiated as held by this Hon’ble High Court in
the case of Gajendra Singh Vardhman V/s The State of Madhya Pradesh in the file
of Writ Appeal No. 699 of 2014 decided on 04.09.2014.
I. Because the respondent authorities failed to appreciate that the
provisions of suspension are separately made in the Madhya Pradesh Police
Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, for brevity). As per
the amendment made in the Regulations, power of Senior Superintendent of Police
and Superintendent of Police as prescribed under Regulation 221 (d) of said
Regulations can be exercised only in circumstances when a departmental enquiry
is pending in respect of misconduct of any such employee. If that provisions is
read with other provisions made in the Regulations 247 of the Regulations, it would
be clear that suspension is not to be made generally, but only in exceptional
circumstances in all cases in which a serious departmental charge which may
result in imposition of penalty of dismissal, is brought against a police
officer. However, the Order of suspension simply says that the petitioner is
suspended because of his misbehavior and in discipline conduct in the office.
It is nowhere said that the departmental enquiry is contemplated against the
petitioner.
J. Because the respondent authorities ought to have considered that
the fact further remains that for the police officers upto the rank of
Inspector onwards, the procedure as laid down under the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (Hereinafter referred
to as Rules, for short) are made applicable. The suspension is prescribed under
Rule 9 of the said Rules, wherein specific provisions is made under sub-rule
(2-a) of Rule 9 of the Rules aforesaid, in respect of issuance of charge sheet.
From the description of reason of suspension, it is clear that it was owing to
indiscipline and misconduct of the petitioner for which a departmental enquiry
was required to be conducted and that being so, it was necessary to issue him a
charge sheet within 45 days. Believing that the charge sheet was not required
to be issued to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of suspension as
nothing is prescribed in that respect under the Regulations, it appears that
immediate action was not taken for issuance of charge sheet and the same had
been issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2014. If the Rules were made applicable,
then the suspension order dated 10.01.2014 stands automatically vacated because
of not issuing the charge sheet within a period of 45 days.
K. Because the respondent authorities erred in Law in not considering
that after expiry of period of 45 days, the charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner on 02.04.2014 by the respondent No. 4 only on the basis of
preliminary enquiry report given by the Additional superintendent of Police,
Raisen. The petitioner had submitted his reply, but no action was taken. The
power to suspended the petitioner in such circumstances was not available to
the respondent No. 4 therefore the petitioner was constrained to file a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forming subject matter
of Writ Petition No. 10765 of 2014 (S).
L. Because the respondent authorities committed grave error and
irregularity in not considering that the post of Inspector of Police continues
till date to form part of the cadre constituted under the M. P. Police
Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1996 ("Non-Gazetted
Rules" for brevity). The post of Inspector of Police till date does not
form part of the cadre constituted by the M.P. Police Executive (Gazetted)
Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 ("Gazetted Rules" for
brevity). Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966 ("1966 Rules" for brevity) in Rule 3(l)(d) excludes the
applicability of the 1966 Rules to such person for whom special provision for
the time being in force is made in respect of matters covered by the Rules of
1966 by or under any law. Section 7 of
the Police Act, 1861 bestows plenary powers to the IG, DIG and AIG to dismiss
and discharge any Police Officer of Subordinate rank subject to protection
provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the relevant Rules.
M.P. Police Regulations ("Regulations" for brevity) are statutory in
nature having been framed under section 43(2) and (3) of Indian Police Act,
1861. Regulation 213 of the Regulations, by implication excludes the
applicability of the Regulations to the members of the Indian Police Service
and M.P. State Police Service (Officers of the rank of Dy.S.P. and above). An
Inspector of Police is undoubtedly subordinate in rank to Dy. S.P. and is
neither a member of M.P. State Police Service as mentioned in Regulation 213
nor a member of the services/cadres constituted under the Gazetted Rules.
M. Because the respondent authorities committed material
irregularity-illegality in not considering that Regulation 221 of the
Regulations bestows power upon SP to inflict punishment of censure on
Inspectors whereas Regulation 222 bestows powers on DIG to inflict any punishment
except removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement from service upon
Inspectors. Regulation 228 of the Regulations provides that in all cases of
removal, compulsory retirement from service, reduction in rank/grade/pay or
withdrawing of increments for a period in excess of one year, the SP shall be
empowered to set forth the charge, the evidence on which the charge is based,
the defence of the accused, the statements of his witnesses, if any, the
findings of the SP with reasons on which it is based and the enquiry report
containing the findings in regard to the charges against the delinquent
officer. Thus, in other words, the SP is empowered by Regulation 228 to issue a
charge-sheet/institute disciplinary proceedings against an Inspector of Police. In the backdrop of the undisputed
factual matrix supra, this Court is persuaded to hold that the Regulation 228
categorically provides for issuance of charge-sheet to an Inspector of Police
and, therefore by necessary implication arising out of conjoint reading of
Regulation 213 and Rule 3(l)(d) of 1966 Rules, the applicability of 1966 Rules
gets excluded qua an Inspector of Police as regards the subject-matter of
competence to issue charge-sheet.
N. The charges leveled against the petitioner by no stretch of imagination
be taken to be a conduct congenial of a government servant. Rule 3 of the Rules
stipulates:
"3.
General.-(1) Every Government servant shall at all times :-
(i)
maintain absolute integrity;
(ii)
maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do
nothing which is unbecoming of a
Government servant.
(2)
(i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible
steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants
for the time being under his control and authority.
(ii)
No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in
the exercise of the powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best
judgment except that when he is acting under the direction of his official
superior and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the
direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to
obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain written confirmation of the
direction as soon thereafter as possible.
Explanation.-
Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) shall be construed as empowering the
Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from,
or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions, are not
necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.
|
Madhya Pradesh Police
Regulations
|
64.
General Condition of Service- Every candidate for an appointment in
the police should be made acquainted, prior to appointment, with the general
conditions of police service, which are as follows: -
(1)
Each police officer shall devote his whole time to the police service alone. He
shall not take part in any trade or calling whatever, unless expressly
permitted to do so.
(2)
He shall faithfully and honestly use his best abilities to fulfill all his
duties as a police officer.
(3)
He shall confirm himself simplicity to all rules, which shall, from time to
time, be made for the regulation and good order of the service. And
shall cultivate a proper regard for its honour and respectability.
(4)
He shall submit to discipline, observe subordination and promptly obey All
lawful orders.
(5)
He shall serve and reside wherever he may be directed to serve and reside.
(6)
He shall wear, when on duty, such dress and accoutrements as shall, from
time to time, be prescribed for each rank of the service and shall be
always neat and clean in his appearance. At no time shall any police
officer appears partly in uniform and partly in mufti.
(7)
He shall allow such deductions to be made, from his pay and allowances as may
be required for kit, quarters and the like, under the rules of the service.
(8)
He shall promptly discharge such debts as the Superintendent may direct and
shall not without the Superintendent's permission, have money transactions with
any other police officer, or borrow money from a resident of the district in
which he is employed.
(9)
He shall not withdraw from the service without distinct permission in writing,
or (in the absence of such permission) without giving two months' previous
warning of his intention to do so.
(10)
He shall not on any occasion or under any pretext, directly or indirectly take
or receive any present, gratuity or fee from any person what so ever, without
the sanction of the Superintendent.
(11)
He shall act with respect and deference towards all officers of Government and
with forbearance, kindness and civility towards private persons of all ranks.
In private life he shall set an example of peaceful behaviors and shall avoid
all partisanship.
(12)
On ceasing to belong to the force, he will immediately deliver up all kit and
accoutrements, and vacate any quarters that have been supplied to him at the
public cost.
7. Relief Prayed for :
(a) That the Hon’ble High court shall be pleased to call for the
entire original record of lis for its
kind perusal.
(b) That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable
writ or direction quashing impugned Order No. PU A/ RAI/ STENO/ 24/2014 dated 10.01.2014
(Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 1.
(c) That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable
writ or direction quashing impugned Order No. PU MA NI/ HO ZO/ NI SA/ VI ZO/A.
AADESH/ -06-B/15 dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure P-25) passed by respondent No. 3.
(d) That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable
writ or direction quashing impugned Order No. PU MU/ 23/ B-1/ (62-15)/15 / 1152
dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure P-27) passed by respondent No. 2.
(e) That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable
writ or direction quashing impugned Order No. 1733/ 6572/ 2015/ B-4/ Two dated
23.05.2016 (Annexure P-28) passed by respondent No. 1
(f) That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable
writ or direction quashing impugned Order No. PU MU/ 1/ ACR CELL/ 10/ 686/ 16
dated 03.11.2016 (Annexure P-29) passed by respondent No. 2.
(g) That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable
writ or direction to the respondent authorities to take suitable and
appropriate proceedings/action against respondent No. 5.
(h) Cost of this petition be also awarded in favour of the
petitioner.
Any other relief deemed fit and proper
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.
8. Interim Order / Writ, if prayed
for :
In view of the facts and circumstance of the case during pendency
of instant writ petition operation, impact and effect of impugned Order No. PU
MA NI/ HO ZO/ NI SA/ VI ZO/A. AADESH/ -06-B/15 dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure P-25)
passed by respondent No. 3, may kindly be stayed, in the larger interest of
justice.
9.
Documents relied on but not in possession of the petitioner :
All the
relevant material and original records in relation to subject matter in dispute
is lying with respondent authorities which my kindly be requisitioned by the
Hon’ble High Court for its kind perusal.
10.
Caveat
:
That, no notice of
lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED: ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (S)
PETITIONER : SHAILENDRA TIWARI
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH
& Ors.
AFFIDAVIT
I,
SHAILENDRA TIWARI, Aged about 58 years, Son of Mr. Ved Prakash Tiwari,
Inspector, State Situation Room, Police Head Quarter, Jehangirabad, Bhopal,
District – Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh), do hereby state on oath as under :
1.
That I am the Petitioner in the
above mentioned writ petition and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to
in the Writ Petition.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the accompanying writ petition
are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on
legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no
part is false.
3.
That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-29 to the accompanying writ petition
are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with
their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.
PLACE
: JABALPUR
DATED
: DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, SHAILENDRA TIWARI, the above named
deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are
true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or
falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (S)
PETITIONER : SHAILENDRA TIWARI
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH
& Ors.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Direct Order issued by
respondent No. 2
|
23.10.2013
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
2.
|
note sheet moved by petitioner
|
01.01.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
3.
|
note sheet moved by Establishment
section
|
06. 01.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
4.
|
Suspension Order
|
10.01.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
5.
|
Application for voluntary
retirement
|
10.01.2014
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
6.
|
Representation submitted by petitioner against suspension
order
|
15.01.2014
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
7.
|
Order issued by respondent No.
3 according sanction of voluntary retirement
|
30.01.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
8.
|
Application for withdrawal of
Voluntary retirement application
|
05.02.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
9.
|
Order issued by respondent No.
3 allowing the application dated 05.02.2014 for withdrawal of Voluntary
retirement application
|
28.02.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
10.
|
Order passed by this Hon’ble
High Court in Writ Petition No. 10765 of 2014 (S)
|
01.08.2014
|
Xerox
|
04 (Four)
|
|
11.
|
Entire Charge sheet
|
02.04.2014
|
Xerox
|
10 (Ten)
|
|
12.
|
Written reply together with statement submitted by petitioner
against charge
|
11.04.2017
|
Xerox
|
04 (Four)
|
|
13.
|
Confidential communication
regarding adverse entries of the year 2014
|
16.12.2014
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
14.
|
Representation submitted by
petitioner regarding adverse entries in the ACR
|
00.03.2015
|
Xerox
|
07 (Seven)
|
|
15.
|
ACR’s for the year 2009
|
2009
|
Xerox
|
06 (Six)
|
|
16.
|
ACR’s for the year 2010
|
2010
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
17.
|
ACR’s for the year 2011
|
2011
|
Xerox
|
06 (Six)
|
|
18.
|
ACR’s for the year 2012
|
2012
|
Xerox
|
10 (Ten)
|
|
19.
|
ACR’s for the year 2013
|
2013
|
Xerox
|
04 (Four)
|
|
20.
|
Representation before the respondent No. 2
|
08.07.2015
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
21.
|
List of all Rewards/ penalties
obtained through the provisions Section 6 (1) of Right to Information Act,
2005
|
30.03.2015
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
22.
|
Final report submitted by
respondent No. 4 in terms of departmental Enquiry
|
24.02.2015
|
Xerox
|
12 (Twelve)
|
|
23.
|
Show cause notice (wrongly typed as 04.03.2014)
|
04.03.2015
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
24.
|
Reply submitted by petitioner
alongwith its acknowledgement
|
11.03.2015
|
Xerox
|
12 (Twelve)
|
|
25.
|
Impugned Order passed by
respondent No. 2 in relation to imposition of penalty
|
25.03.2015
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
26.
|
Representation submitted by
petitioner
|
|
Xerox
|
04 (Four)
|
|
27.
|
Impugned Order passed by
respondent No. 2
|
10.06.2015
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
28.
|
Impugned Order passed by respondent
No. 1
|
23.05.2016
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
29.
|
Impugned
Order dated passed by respondent No. 2
|
03.11.2016
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
PLACE : JABALPUR:
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules
4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961]
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (S)
PETITIONER : SHAILENDRA TIWARI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
I, the petitioner named below do hereby appoint, engage and
authorize advocate (s) named below to
appear, act and plead in aforesaid case / proceeding, which shall include
applications for restoration, setting aside for ex - parte orders, corrections,
modifications, review and recall of orders assed in these proceedings, in this
Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried / heard / proceeded
with and also in the appellate, revisional or executing Court in respect of the
proceedings arising from this case / proceedings as per agreed terms and
conditions and authorize them to sign and file
pleadings , appeals, cross objections, petitions, applications,
affidavits, or the other documents as may be deemed necessary and proper for
the prosecution / defence of the said
case in all its stages and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them
as if done by me.
In
witness whereof I do hereby set my hands to these presents, the contents of
which have been duly understood by me, this – day of ----------------- 2017 at
Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing Vakalatnama
|
Name and father s / Husband s Name
|
Registered Address
|
E-Mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if any)
|
Status in the case
|
Full Signature/ **Thumb
Impression
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
SHAILENDRA
TIWARI, Aged about 58 years, Son of Mr. Ved Prakash Tiwari,
|
Inspector, State
Situtation Room, Police Head Quarter, Jehangirabad, Bhopal District – Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh)
|
e-MAIL : shai.tiwari15@gmail.com
|
JIO : 79744-78155
|
PETITIONER
|
|
Accepted
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting
Vakalatnama
|
|
Full Name &
Enrollment No. in State Bar Council
|
Address for Service
|
E-mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if
any)
|
Full Signature
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
1.
|
VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 1554 / 2003
|
SEAT NO. 93, GOLDEN
JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES,
JABALPUR 482 001
|
IDEA 98261-43925
|
|
|
|
2.
|
MRS. POONAM SINGH
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 3159 / 2004
|
-DO-
|
|
||
|
3.
|
AMIT KUMAR KHARE,
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 1291/ 2006
|
HOUSE NO. 1483 / 17,
SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR 482 001
|
NIL
|
BSNL 94258 66726
LAND LINE 0761 - 2345 005
|
|
|
4.
|
VIJAY KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV /
949/ 2006
|
SEAT NO. 81, HALL NO.
1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
|
NIL
|
IDEA : 97539 13103
AIRTEL 97554 82448
|
|
*Score out which is not applicable
** The thumb impression shall be attested by a literate person
giving above particulars.
No comments:
Post a Comment