IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO 1783612014

PETITIONER GhanshyamdasAhirwar
VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of MP c
others

DECLATION

It is declared that Main matter is not included in the

current issued by the Registry
dailylweeklylist

Jabalpur
Dated 9Jan15
COUNSEL
e2w

A
e

e 4

t 9 JAN

jo
1
e
1
0
5
 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO 1783612014

PETITIONER GhanshyamdasAhirwar
VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of MP l others

INDEX

SeNo Particulars Annexure PageNo

1 Return 24

2 Affidavit 5

3 Vakalatnama 6

Jabalpur
Dated 09101115 901915
OFFICER INCHARGE OF THE CASE

201
eeh
 r9

2 1
Jl e
0
e

1N THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO 1783612014

PETITIONER GhanshyamdasAhirwar
VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of MP E others

RETURN ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

The respondentsnamed above respectfully submit as

under

1 By way of the instant writ petition the petitionerhas prayed

for issuing writ ln the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent authorities not to proceed the departmental
enquiry as contemplatedvide Annexure Pl l during the

pendency of the criminal trial as has been initiated vide

Annexure Pl2 The relief has been sought mainly on the

ground that the conduct of the respondent authorities 1S

violating the fundamental right of the petitioner and the

e 044 Honble SupremeCourt has giventhe verdict that if the case

of departmentalproceedingsleveled againstthe petitionerare

similar to the charge of the criminal trial and there are

1 2 1
21 chances prejudicingthe right of defense
of of the petitioner lIl
the departmentalenquiryshould stop

1 201The answering respondents respectfully submit

V
that the

chargesleveled againstthe petitionerin a criminal trial and

lIl
departmentalenquiry are entirely different
the That
against the petitionerinvestigationtrial Uls 7 of P Act
1988 is going on whereas the departmentalenquiry 1S
initiated for violation of Police Regulation62a and 64 and
therefore the petitionerfiled by the petitioneris misconceived
 1

and devoid of substance and the same is liable to be

dismissed

3 The answering respondentsrespectfully submit that the

petitiorierwhile posted at PS Jaisinagar was investigating

the case registeredUls 294 323 of IPC vide Crime No

12712014on the report of one Lasman Patel The petitioner

after registration of the offence has not investigatedthe
matter effectivelyand has not recorded the statement of the

eye witnesses nortried to arrestthe accused The petitioner

has also not recorded case diary hence accordingthe Police
Regulation62 6131 he has not performedthe duty with
due negligence

4 It is further submitted that case against the petitioner 1S

being investigated Uls 70f PC Act 1988 for demanding
illegal gratification and the Trial Court has to decide the
matter on its own merit The departmentalenquiryis entirely
on tlhe different 1eee not
set of facts the petitioner has
performedthe duty with due diligenceand commitment and
hence both the chargesare different therefore the contention
of the petitionerthat both the charges are similar and the

defence of the petitionerwill prejudice has no legal force

JAN and the petitionis liable to be dismissed

5 The answering respondents respectfully submit that the

4

petitionerhas cited one case of GM Tank Vs State ofGurjrat

reportedzn 200Sl SCC 446I where the Honble Supreme
Court has held that the acquittal ln criminal trial and
dismissal of employee ln departmentalenquiry on the basis
of the same set of facts and charges is unjust unfair and
6 4r
V
oppressive The facts and circumstances of the case
1d1
relied by
the petitioneris entirelydifferent from the case in hand and
as ln Act
the case registered Uls 7 of the PC the
investigation1S golng on ln respect to demand of illegal
gratification whereas the chargeleveled againstthe petitioner
 4

lIl
departmentalenquiryis only in respect to negligenceln
the
performingthe duty Both the chargesare entirelydifferent
and therefore the case relied by the petitioner 1S not

applicablein the present case

The answerillg respondentsrespectfully submit that the

basic contention of the petitioner 1S that the petitioner

defence will be prejudice in the trial if the departmental
enqulry 1S
allowed to proceed In thisregardit is submitted
that ln the departmental enquiry the charge that the

petitionerhas not recorded the statement of witnesses and

delayedthe same and also not recorded the case diary and
was
negligentin performinghis duty The petitionerhas been
charge sheeted for violation of the Police Regulation the

charges lIl the departmentalenquiry are not that while

demandingthe illegal gratificationhe committed violation of

the Police Regulation Hence there is nothing wrong lIl

proceeding with the departmentalenquiry and therefore

there is no substance ln the petition

7 The answeringrespondentsrespectfullysubmit that in the

case
registeredUls 70f PC Act 1988 the witness Laxman
Patel
eee

has not to depose about the delayed recording of

or not writingthe case diary however at the most
may deposethat demand was made or not and so far as

CO are
other witnesses concerned they are the trap
f
7e 17vitnesses hence the set of witnesses in both the case
are

In view of this also there 1S 110 merit in the petition

09
Iv4evIe
same
ancl the is liable to be dismissed

8 An afdavit in support is filed herewith

JABALPUR 2

Datecll 09101115
OFFICER INCHARGE OF THE CASE
19 JAN 2015
COUNSEL
 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO 1783612014

PETITIONER GhanshyamdasAhirwar

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State ofM others

AFFIDAVIT

I Shailendra Singh Bais Slo Shri RB Singh aged about

59 years Presentlyposted SDPl as Rahatgarh Distt Sagar
MPI Officer Inchargeofthe case do hereby make oath and
state as under

1 That the deponent1S the Officer Inchargeof the case on

behalf of respondents and is conversant with the facts of the
case

2 That the contents of paras 1 to 7 of the attached reply

are
true on the basis of information received as per
2224
documents annexed with the reply and believed to be true by
me

JAN e

DENT
VERIFICATION

I Shailendra Singh Bais above named deponent do

the
contents of above afdavit paras 1 and 2 are
true to my personal knowledge
Verified and signedon this d of at Jabalpur
l
r

DENT
O

2015
8 C42
9
7
11711t
V
V

1
1V110 nat n

p8
r Poro
C1177
11
Fos
6JABALj
 t

APPENDIX leA 4

VAKALATNAMA
Rule 411 of the Rules franed under the Advocates Act 1961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Noe
CASE 02Z12019
r
ee e e
1 4 e
CLAIMANT 1
PLAINTIFF 1 PETITIONE
APPELLANT I
62 W4
eeemeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeaaeaeeeeese
1t
APPLICANT e r
Versus
DEFENDANT I RESPONDENT 1
NONAPPLICANT M
1 P Cflit
aeeeneeeeeaaeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeaeeeeeeee
1
S D O P1 444

case oceedins whih slincide applicationsfor restorationsettingaside o pa ore mrredions

modiflcatiors revie artdrecall of orders passedin theseproceedings in thisCoun or in anl otherCout in wh
same ty be ried l heardl proceeded with and also in the appellate revisionalor executingCourt in respectof
cdins risingfromthis case proceedings as per agreed termsand conditionsand authore himl themto sign
andfile pleadings 4
apeaIs cross objections petitionsappiications amdavitsor otherdocumentsas mI be d
neesaryor for the rsecution l defenceof the said case in all its stageand also agreeto rati67
and conOrm
actsdone byhim1 themas if done byme l us
In witnesswhereofI 1 we do hereuntoset my I our handto thesepresentsthe contentsof whichhavebeen
dulyunderstood byme 1 us this dayof 2013

Particulars Vakalatnama
ofeach partyexecuUog
on block Iettersl
Namea Fathers i Registered Eemail Telephone Status in the Full Signature1
Husbands Name Address Address of Number Iifanyl Case Thumb
anyl Impression
111 21 31 141 5J 161

et 1
4
992Sle67S3r1 OtC
c e

144e1 R 111 f
1r 444 1 l 1 15
1

Partiloulars ofeachadvocate Accepung

lInblock Iettersl Vakalatnama

TELEe
NO NAME POST ENROL NO PHONE
NOIF
1e SHRI RAVISHCHANDRA ANYI
AGRAL ADVOCATEGENERAL
2 SHRI PURUSHAINDRA
KAURAV ADDL ADV GENERAL
151412001
3 SHRI KUMARESHPATHAK DY ADV GENERAL 77111981
4 SHRI RAHULJAIN DYADVGENERAL 151311993
5 SHRIVUAY PANDEY DY ADVGENERAL 36511988
6 SHRI SUDESHVERMA GOVT ADVOCATE 87411984 r

7 SHRI ROHINIPD TIWARI GOVT ADVOCATE 1052All992

8 SMT SHEETALDUBEY GOVT ADVOCATE 85712002
9 SHRI UMESHPANDEY GOVT ADVOCATE 52411977 re r e

10 SHRI S KASHYAP GOVT ADVOCATE 80611984

11 SHRI SS BISEN GOVT ADVOCATE 67511980
1 SHRI ASHOKK CHAURASIA GOVT ADVOCATE 23311993
13 SHRI SANJAYDWIVEDI GOVT ADVOCATE 71811989
14 SHRI RAJESHTIWARI GOVT ADVOCATE 119711997
15 SHRI AKHILENDRASINGH GOVT ADVOCATE 433712000
16 SHRI SAMEERCHILE GOVT ADVOCATE 156311997
17 SHRI CHANDRAKANTMISHRA GOVT ADVOCATE
R
96611990
18 SMT NIRMALANAYAK GOVT ADVOCATE 14801995
19 SHRI SHIVMOHANlAL GOVT ADVOCATE
f1 1
20 SHRI RAHULKUMARJAIN GOVT ADVOCATE Le0
21 SHRI SAMDARSHITIWARI GOVT ADVOCATE r
230911996
22 SHRI PIYUSHDHARMADHIKARI GOVT ADVOE 294412000
rl 23 SHRI AKHILESHSHUKLA DY GA 413212000
240 SHRI YOGESH DHANDE DY GA 180411995

25 SHRI
PANDEY
BYANKATE5HPD DY GA 5311993

26 SHRISWAPNILGANGULI DYGA 4
t

Score out whichever is not applicable

The thumb impressionshall be attested bya Iiterateperson givingabove particulars