STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANRversusAKHILESH JHA & ANR

146                      [2021]
              SUPREME COURT     6 S.C.R. 146
                             REPORTS                      [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A                 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR
                                      v.
                          AKHILESH JHA & ANR
                        (Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2021)
B                           SEPTEMBER 06, 2021
                [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,
                VIKRAM NATH AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
             Service Law – Departmental enquiry – First respondent-
C     Superintendent of Police allegedly violated administrative orders
      of the Inspector General of Police for disbanding “Gunda Squad”
      constituted, operated and supervised by the first respondent, and
      a person interrogated by the Squad died in custody – Magisterial
      enquiry was conducted and the report submitted contained
      observations against the first respondent – Departmental enquiry
D     subsequently convened against the first respondent and charge
      sheet was issued – Tribunal quashed the charge-sheet on grounds
      that there was a delay of nearly two years in concluding the
      disciplinary enquiry; and that the charges were ambiguous –
      Affirmation of the order, by High Court – Held: Not justified –
E     Charges against the first respondent were neither vague nor
      ambiguous – The charge-sheet, together with the statement of
      imputations, contains detailed elaboration of the allegations
      against the first respondent – Tribunal quashed the charge-sheet
      purportedly on the basis that prejudice had been caused to the
      first respondent by denial of opportunity for deputation or for
F
      promotion as a result of the pendency of the proceedings – This
      line of reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal is plainly
      erroneous – Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does
      not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated – Whether
      prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a
G     matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances
      of each case – Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been
      caused and cannot be a matter of surmise – Chargesheet was
      issued to the first respondent while he was in service, and hence
      the disciplinary enquiry can proceed to its logical conclusion –
H     Disciplinary enquiry directed to be concluded expeditiously.
                                     146
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. AKHILESH JHA                          147


      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                   A
       HELD:1. On the basis of the material placed on the record,
it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the charge
against the first respondent is vague or ambiguous. The
charge-sheet, together with the statement of imputations,
contains a detailed elaboration of the allegations against the first   B
respondent and does not leave the recipient in a measure of
doubt or ambiguity over the nature of the case he is required
to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding that the charge
is vague is palpably in error. The Tribunal declined to quash the
charge-sheet by its initial order dated 28 July 2016. However,         C
by a subsequent order dated 5 January 2018, it proceeded to
do exactly what it had declined to do by its previous order. The
Tribunal purportedly did so on the basis that prejudice had been
caused to the first respondent by the denial of an opportunity
for deputation or for promotion as a result of the pendency of
the proceedings. The line of reasoning which weighed with the          D
Tribunal is plainly erroneous. The Tribunal would have been
justified in directing the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry,
but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its entirety.
This was clearly impermissible. Every delay in conducting a
disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being   E
vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being
enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis
of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be
demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of
surmise. Apart from submitting that the first respondent was
unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is         F
no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend
himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in
concluding the enquiry. The High Court, therefore, has clearly
failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by simply
affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the            G
Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the
matter and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well
as by the High Court. [Para 13][152-C-H; 153-A]
      2. The chargesheet was issued to the first respondent
while he was in service, and hence the disciplinary enquiry can        H
148            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     proceed to its logical conclusion. The disciplinary enquiry should
      be concluded expeditiously, preferably by 31 July 2022. [Para
      14][153-B]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5153
      of 2021.
B           From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2019 of the High
      Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MP NO.3854
      of 2018.
            Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AG, Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Manish
      Yadav, Advs. for the Appellants.
C
           Braj K. Mishra, Joby P. Varghese, Rajneesh Kumar Jha, Nishant
      Kumar Srivastava, Aby P. Varghese, Donna Xavier, Advs. for the
      Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D           DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
            1. Leave granted.
            2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of
      the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 5 September 2019.
E            3. The first respondent was posted as Superintendent of Police
      at Alirajpur from June 2012 to June 2015. It has been alleged that in
      spite of the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police, Indore
      Zone to disband the “Gunda squad”, the first respondent constituted,
      supervised and operated the squad. It has been alleged that on 1 June
      2014, individuals belonging to such a squad, acting under the supervision
F     of the first respondent arrested an accused who was taken into custody
      after being called to the police station by the members of the Gunda
      Squad. The person, who was under interrogation, died in custody on 3
      June 2014. A magisterial enquiry was conducted into the custodial death
      and a report was submitted on 10 October 2014. The report contained
G     observations against the first respondent on his role in illegally
      constituting the squad.
            4. Challenging the observations made by the JMFC Alirajpur, in
      his report dated 10 October 2014, the first respondent instituted
      proceedings before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By its order
H     dated 2 March 2016, the High Court expunged some of the observations
          STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. AKHILESH JHA                                149
            [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J]

contained in the magisterial report against the first respondent on the          A
ground that they were in violation of the principles of natural justice.
On 21 April 2016, the High Court directed that in case any action is
initiated against the first respondent on the basis of the magisterial report,
a proper opportunity of being heard in response to the allegations should
be granted to him before drawing any adverse conclusion.
                                                                                 B
       5. On 8 June 2016, a departmental enquiry was convened against
the first respondent and a charge-sheet was issued. The allegation in
the charge-sheet was that the first respondent had committed acts of
indiscipline and insubordination by not following the instructions issued
by his superior officers regarding the disbanding of the Gunda Squad.
The first respondent submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 7 July           C
2016, denying the allegations levelled against him. Soon thereafter, he
moved the Central Administrative Tribunal1 at Jabalpur for challenging
the charge-sheet which was served on him on 8 June 2016. The Tribunal,
by its order dated 28 July 2016, declined to interfere with the
charge-sheet but granted an opportunity to the first respondent to initiate      D
appropriate proceedings, if a decision adverse to him was taken on the
basis of the reply to the charge-sheet.
      6. The first respondent once again moved the Tribunal for
challenging the charge- sheet dated 8 June 2016 in OA 587 of 2017 on
the ground that no decision had been taken following his reply to the
charge-sheet and that as a result of the pendency of the disciplinary            E
proceedings, his deputation and promotional avenues had been adversely
affected.
      7. The Tribunal, by its order dated 5 January 2018, quashed the
charge-sheet issued to the first respondent. The following three grounds
weighed with the Tribunal:                                                       F
                  (i) There was a delay of nearly two years;
                 (ii) The charges were ambiguous; and
                 (iii) The High Court had expunged the remarks in the
                       magisterial enquiry which was held to enquire into the    G
                       custodial death.
      The order of the Tribunal was assailed by the appellants before
the High Court. By its judgment dated 5 September 2019, the Division
Bench dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of the Tribunal.
1
    “Tribunal”                                                                   H
150            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A           We have heard Ms Ankita Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General
      appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr Braj K Mishra, Counsel
      appearing on behalf of the first respondent.
             8. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal which has been
      confirmed by the High Court, Ms Ankita Chaudhary submitted that ex
B     facie the charge-sheet and the imputations would indicate that the
      finding of vagueness is unsustainable. Counsel submitted that the
      gravamen of the charge-sheet is that the first respondent, who was
      posted as the Superintendent of Police, Alirajpur, had violated the
      administrative orders of the Inspector General of Police for disbanding
      the Gunda Squads and that a person who had been interrogated by the
C
      Squad which was constituted, operated and supervised by the first
      respondent died in custody. Counsel submitted that first and foremost,
      the expunging of the remarks in the report of the magisterial enquiry
      would have no bearing on the entitlement of the State to exercise its
      disciplinary authority over the first respondent. Secondly, it was urged
D     that the Tribunal had declined to quash the charge-sheet in the first OA
      which was filed by the first respondent before the Bench at Jabalpur.
      Having declined to quash the charge-sheet at that stage, it was not open
      to the Tribunal to quash it on a second OA on the plea that there was
      a delay in completing the enquiry. Thirdly, Counsel submitted that there
E     was, in fact, no delay and if there was a requirement for the enquiry
      to be concluded within a time schedule, such a direction could have
      been issued. However, there was no justification to quash the enquiry
      and to obstruct the disciplinary proceedings which have been convened
      by the State in exercise of its authority over the respondent.

F            9. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the first
      respondent that the charge-sheet is devoid of material particulars,
      including the date on which the instructions for disbanding the Gunda
      Squads were issued by the Inspector General of Police as well as the
      specific role alleged to have been performed by the first respondent in
      the circumstances leading to the alleged death of the person who was
G     under interrogation. Moreover, it has been submitted that the delay, as
      a matter of fact, caused prejudice to the first respondent since he was
      deprived of his opportunities of deputation and promotion at par with
      his other batch mates. Hence, it has been urged that the delay in
      conducting the disciplinary proceeding has caused serious prejudice to
H     the first respondent.
       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. AKHILESH JHA                                 151
         [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J]

       10. The charge-sheet was issued to the first respondent in              A
exercise of powers conferred by Rule 10 of the All India Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 on 8 June 2016. The charge-sheet
which is annexed to the communication issued by the Home Department
of the State of Madhya Pradesh contains the following charge:
      “You have violated the Rule 03 of All India Services (Conduct)           B
      Rules, 1968 by operating Gunda Squad illegally in the District
      Alirajpur and by committing indiscipline and violation of directions
      of the Senior Officers. The aforesaid act of yours is against the
      provisions of Rule 3 of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968
      and the same is punishable under All India Services (Discipline          C
      and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The detailed particulars of the aforesaid
      charges are attached.”
       11. The statement of charges has been appended to the
charge-sheet. The statement of charges indicates that the gravamen
of the allegation against the first respondent is that the Inspector General   D
of Police, Indore Zone had issued instructions to all Superintendents of
Police that no officer working in the District shall constitute a Gunda
Squad and if such a Squad is working, then it must be dissolved
immediately. The incident leading to custodial death took place while
the individual was in the custody of Police Station Sorwa of District
Alirajpur on 3 June 2014. The statement of imputations states, thus:           E

      “The incident of the death in the police custody happened in PS
      Sorwa of the District Alirajpur on 03.06.2014. The Superintendent
      of Police, District Alirajpur had sent Subedar K.P. Singh Tomar
      working as the Squad In charge to interrogate the suspect
      deceased Jhingla in Crime No.39/14 Section 307 IPC of the police         F
      Station Sorwa. Subedar Tomar inflicted injuries to the deceased
      Jhingla by assaulting him during interrogation, which led the
      suspect Jhingla to death. When the aforesaid incident took place,
      the squad in charge Subedar Tomar and other 05 policemen were
      suspended on 03.06.2014.                                                 G
      In the aforesaid incident, Subedar K.P. Singh Tomar and his all
      subordinate employees were appointed as the reserve force in
      the police control room but Shri Akhilesh Jha, the then
      Superintendent of Police, District Alirajpur had been using all these
      employees regularly as the Gunda Squad, while Shri Akhilesh Jha          H
152            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A           the then Superintendent of Police Alirajpur refused “To have
            constituted Gunda Squad” in Letter No. SP/Ali/Steno/736/14
            dated 15.07.2014. In this regard, the clarification was sought from
            the then Superintendent of Police, Shri Akhilesh Jha vide letter
            no. IGP/E/Ka.F-29/47-45-3-A/14 dated 28.09.2014 of the office.”
B           12. The statement of imputations contains a reference to the Duty
      Register as well as the General Diary at the material time. The list of
      documents annexed to the charge-sheet refers to 21 documents on the
      basis of which the charges were intended to be proved.
             13. On the basis of the above material which has been placed
C     on the record, it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the
      charge against the first respondent is vague or ambiguous. The charge-
      sheet, together with the statement of imputations, contains a detailed
      elaboration of the allegations against the first respondent and does not
      leave the recipient in a measure of doubt or ambiguity over the nature
      of the case he is required to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The
D     finding that the charge is vague is palpably in error. The Tribunal
      declined to quash the charge-sheet by its initial order dated 28 July 2016.
      However, by a subsequent order dated 5 January 2018, it proceeded
      to do exactly what it had declined to do by its previous order. The
      Tribunal purportedly did so on the basis that prejudice had been caused
E     to the first respondent by the denial of an opportunity for deputation or
      for promotion as a result of the pendency of the proceedings. The line
      of reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal is plainly erroneous. The
      Tribunal would have been justified in directing the expeditious conclusion
      of the enquiry, but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its
      entirety. This, in our view, was clearly impermissible. Every delay in
F     conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry
      being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being
      enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the
      circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have
      been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise. Apart from submitting
G     that the first respondent was unable to proceed on deputation or to seek
      promotion, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that his
      right to defend himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two
      years in concluding the enquiry. The High Court, therefore, in our view,
      has clearly failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by
      simply affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the
H
        STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. AKHILESH JHA                                 153
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J]

Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the matter          A
and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well as by the
High Court.
       14. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 5 September
2019. The charge- sheet was issued to the first respondent while he             B
was in service, and hence the disciplinary enquiry can proceed to its
logical conclusion. The disciplinary enquiry should be concluded
expeditiously, preferably by 31 July 2022. In the event that the first
respondent is entitled to the release of any part of his retiral dues,
including gratuity, in consonance with law, necessary steps for that
purpose shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of           C
this order.
       15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.


Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                          Appeal allowed.   D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H