The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers;
(A) That the honourable court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10-5-2012 at Annexure L.
(B) That the honourable court be pleased to hold that the order dated 10-5-2012 is illegal, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and is suffering from the vice of political colour.
(C) Pending admission and till final hearing of this petition, the honourable court be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 10-5-12 at Annexure L.
(D) that the honourable court be pleased to award costs of this petition.
The facts, as could be seen from the narration, leading to filing this petition indicate that the petitioner was subjected to issuance of charge-sheet on 26.09.1996 for dereliction in duty in respect of investigation of a crime. The said charge-sheet and departmental proceedings resulted into ultimate order of punishment whereunder State of Gujarat passed an order on 10.01.1997, reducing punishment of petitioner into stoppage of one increment, without future effect. The petitioner perceived that on account of the order in the criminal matter arising out of the investigation which was conducted by the petitioner and two others and on account of non fastening of any liability upon the petitioner by the concerned Presiding Officer of the Criminal Court, he had a right to seek review and/or revision of the punishment order and, therefore, petitioner has approached the authorities with application dated 11.01.2011, requesting the authorities to reconsider and revoke the penalty of stoppage of one increment.
In fact, this application was not maintainable at all, as there exists no provision for revision over revision or review over revision. However, the responsible authority passed an order on 10.05.2012 rejecting the application for number of reasons mentioned thereunder. This order is under challenge before this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that learned Sessions Judge while deciding the case did not impute or record finding against the petitioner s lapse or irregularity in conducting the investigation and that being so the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority qua the lapses and investigation should be reviewed and as a result thereof the punishment of stoppage of one increment also should have been revoked.
Learned advocate for the petitioner invited this Court s attention to various documents on the record and contended that in fact the punishment was result of ill founded inquiry as the petitioner did not accept the illegal demands of the complainant against the accused and the complainant happened to be close relative of the then Minister of Home.
This Court is of the considered view that this petition is required to be dismissed for the following reasons.
The petitioner has not made out any case of mala fide conducting of inquiry during the inquiry itself nor has the petitioner made out a case of mala fide conducting of inquiry when the punishment came to be imposed nor the petitioner attempted to show any mala fide when the revision was filed and decided under Section 27 of the Bombay Police Act and the order came to be passed in the year 1997 i.e. order dated 19.01.1997. The entire proceeding rather has attained finality. It is misconception on the part of the concerned including petitioner that there exists one more review or revision of the order dated 10.01.1997. The order dated 10.01.1997 was itself an order of revision by the State whereupon no review or revision is provided. When review or revision is not provided there exists no remedy except challenging the same by way of writ petition. Unfortunately, in the present petition also there is no whisper indicating challenge to the order dated 10.01.1997, as could be seen from the prayer clause. The challenge is confined to the order dated 10.05.2012. Therefore, this Court did not go into the merits of the matter, so far as the order dated 10.01.1997 is concerned. That order has attained finality. The observation of the learned Criminal Court in the criminal matter is of no avail to the petitioner, as the petitioner was not an accused in the case and the departmental inquiry was not similar to the charges to the criminal case rather petitioner was held responsible for dereliction in duty while investigating the case and if one looks it from that angle, then one can say that the investigation has not resulted into conviction, as the Court has observed that the prosecution has failed in proving his charges. Meaning thereby on account of lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer or the lack of evidences, the charges were not brought home that cannot be said to be in any manner a factor helping the petitioner in seeking exoneration of the charges leveled against him. Suffice it to say that petition hopelessly meritless deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the witnesses have turned hostile. This submission is misconceived, as it is stated hereinabove the result of the criminal case is in no way helpful to the petitioner. Therefore, petition is dismissed with cost.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Page 4 of 4