Akhilesh Jha was posted as Superintendent of Police in Alirajpur from June 2012 to June 2015 and during this period he formed, supervised and operated the squad defying the instructions of Inspector General of Police, Indore Zone to disband the “goonda squad”. did.
The Supreme Court has resumed a disciplinary inquiry against a former Madhya Pradesh police officer who was allegedly operating a ‘goonda squad’ illegally while posted as the Superintendent of Police of Alirajpur district, Where a person was killed in custody during interrogation.
The ‘goonda squad’ consisted of a group of police personnel to investigate criminal activities in a particular area.
The apex court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision quashing the charge sheet against former Superintendent of Police Akhilesh Jha, who was promoted to the Indian Police Service cadre in 2011. .
Jha was posted as Superintendent of Police in Alirajpur from June 2012 to June 2015 and during this period formed, supervised and operated the squad, despite instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police, Indore Zone to disband the “goonda squad”. . It is alleged that on June 1, 2014, persons of such squad working under Jha’s supervision arrested an accused, who was taken into custody after being called to the police station by the members of the goonda squad. The person being questioned died in custodial death on June 3, 2014, following which a magisterial inquiry into the custodial death was conducted and a report was submitted on October 10, 2014, showing the illegal formation of the squad. included comments on Jha’s role. , which became the basis for a disciplinary inquiry by the State Government.
A bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Hima Kohli said, “We allow the appeal (of Madhya Pradesh government) and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated September 5, 2019. Chargesheet was issued. The first respondent (Akhilesh Jha) when he was in service, and hence the disciplinary inquiry can proceed to its logical conclusion. It said that the disciplinary inquiry should be completed expeditiously, preferably by July 31, 2022.
It said that the statement of charges indicated that Jha had formed a ‘goonda squad’ despite special instructions to the Inspector General of Police, all the superintendents of police of the Indore zone that no officer working in the district would constitute it. ‘ and if such a squad is functioning, it should be immediately disbanded.
It was noted that there were allegations against Jha that he violated Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 by illegally operating ‘goonda squad’ in Alirajpur district and violating the instructions and indiscipline of senior officers Was. The incident that led to the custodial death occurred when the man was at Soorwa police station in the district on June 3, 2014, when Jha sent Subedar KP Singh Tomar, who was working as the in-charge of the squad, to interrogate the suspected deceased Jhingla. Was.
It noted the allegations that Tomar had hurt Jhingla during interrogation which led to his death, and Tomar and 5 other policemen were suspended.
“It was impossible to come to a conclusion on the basis of the material on record that the allegation against the first respondent is vague or ambiguous,” the bench said.
“The charge sheet contains, along with the statement of indictment, a detailed description of the allegations against the first defendant and does not leave the recipient in doubt or ambiguity as to the nature of the case to which it is required to answer. Disciplinary investigation. It Finding out that the allegation is vague is clearly flawed,” it said.
Terming the argument adopted by CAT as “wrong”, the bench said, “The Tribunal, vide its preliminary order dated July 28, 2016, refused to quash the charge-sheet. However, a subsequent order dated January 5, 2018. By the way, it proceeded to do exactly what it had refused to do by its previous order.”
It said that the tribunal had allegedly done so on the ground that denial of an opportunity of deputation or promotion as a result of pendency of proceedings caused prejudice to Jha.
The bench, in its order on September 6, said that it would be appropriate for the tribunal to direct an early conclusion of the investigation, but instead, it quashed the investigation altogether. “This, in our view, was clearly unacceptable. Every delay in conducting a disciplinary inquiry does not actually spoil the investigation. Does it cause prejudice to the officer being questioned, this is a case which is to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. The cause of prejudice should be shown to be there and it cannot be a matter of conjecture,” the bench said.
It said that apart from saying that Jha was unable to proceed on deputation or take promotion, there is no ground on which to conclude that the delay of two years in the conclusion of the inquiry has a reason to defend himself. Their rights are adversely affected.
“The High Court, therefore, in our view, has clearly failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly by upholding the decision of the Tribunal. There were fundamental errors in the judgment of the Tribunal which go to the root of the matter and which are referred to the Tribunal and Also the High Court has ignored both,” it said.
.