Maniram Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2723 of 2016 Maniram Yadav S/o Shivnarayan Yadav, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Turiyabira, Post Bargidih, Tahsil And Police Station Lundra, Civil And Revenue District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director, Public Education, Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Commissioner, Surguja Division, Surguja, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Collector, Surguja, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

5. District Education Officer, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 07/07/2016

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the communication dated 17.6.2016 (Annexure P-1) by which respondent No.4/Collector has directed the Block Education Officer to lodge report against the petitioner in the police station.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before coming to the conclusion

-2that a prima facie case is made out to submit a report in the police station on the allegation of commission of offence, proper inquiry ought to have been made, in which, in addition to issuing show cause notice, complete records and inquiry report ought to have been supplied to the petitioner and then afforded him an opportunity of hearing to submit his own comments on the inquiry report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the drastic action of the Collector is violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of the India as it suffers from procedural impropriety of the nature as referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, without there being any departmental enquiry, has come to a definite conclusion of commission of serious misconduct by the petitioner and also that the petitioner has committed offence whereas he is not competent authority either to come to a decision that misconduct has been committed warranting imposition of penalty or his guilt.

3. Present is a case where on certain complaint, an enquiry appears to have been made. The enquiry appears to be only of a preliminary nature. It is also not a departmental enquiry in the sense that charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. It is not even a trial to hold the petitioner's guilty. Before sending the matter to the police, the Collector has only satisfied himself whether prima faice there is some material warranting lodging of report in the police station. The purpose of enquiry is neither to impose penalty nor is it a case where the petitioner is convicted on charges and the enquiry is limited only to decide whether a report should be lodged in the police station. Whatever findings have been recorded are only a prima facie considerations and cannot be allowed to travel beyond that.

The grievance of the petitioner that in the enquiry, the enquiry report and other adverse material collected against the petitioner ought to be supplied to him, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be accepted because the purpose of enquiry is not to impose penalty but only to decide whether the matter should be referred to the police. If this is the only purpose of enquiry, I think, giving show cause notice to the petitioner is more than the fairness required in the matter. As a matter of fact, nobody stopped respondent authority from lodging report in the police station without holding the enquiry which actually has been done in the present case. It appears that the authority before sending the matter to the police, wanted to satisfy itself whether there exists some prima

-3facie material.

4. It needs to be noted that in the report lodged in the police station requires an appropriate enquiry to be made in the matter consistent with the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. The SHO of the police station is the competent person to decide whether or not, on the basis of material placed before it and collected during enquiry, a case of registration of offence is made out. The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner that police authority shall act mechanically, cannot be accepted. Every public authority is presumed to act in accordance with law. The report is not binding on the Station House Officer. It will ultimately depend on his own satisfaction as to whether a case of registration of offence is made out or not.

5. Needless to emphasise, in case any adverse action is taken by the police authority, it shall always be open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedy available to him.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen