Madhya Pradesh High Court
Namendra Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2018
1 WP No.12950 of 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.12950 OF 2017
Namendra Singh Chauhan
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Navin Dubey, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER (ORAL)
(Passed on this the 3rd day of May, 2018) The petitioner, who was until now posted as Constable in the Police Department, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the respondent No.5/Assistant Inspector General of Police (Complaint), Police Headquarter, Bhopal and the order dated 10.03.2016 which is an order passed in appeal by the respondent No.4/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Complaint), Police Headquarter, Bhopal and also the order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.2/Director General of Police, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal on a mercy petition filed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 16.10.2015, the petitioner's services have been terminated on the ground of insubordination.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was 2 WP No.12950 of 2017 earlier suspended on 13.02.2013 on account of a criminal case registered against him and was attached to Complaint Section of Police Headquarter, Bhopal. It is contended by the petitioner that the aforesaid Complaint Section also included Human Right Cell of the Police Department and since the petitioner was required to attend the aforesaid Complaint Section regularly, on account of petitioner's entry into the Human Right Cell, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.07.2014. In the aforesaid charge-sheet, the following charges were framed against the petitioner:
"1- fnukad 21-11-2013 dks fuyfEcr jgrs gq, ekuo vf/kdkj tSls xksiuh; izdks"B (d{k) esa vukf/kd`r :i ls igqWqapdj xksiuh; nLrkostkasa esa rkWad&>kad dj xksiuh;rk Hkaax dj lafnX/k vkpj.k iznf'kZr djukA 2- fuyEcu vof/k esa ekuo vf/kdkj izdks"B tSls xksiuh; d{k esa u vkus ds laca/k esa le>kbZl fn;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh ekSf[kd vkns'k dk ikyu ugha dj ofjs"B vf/kdkjh ds lkFk mn.Mrk ,oa vuq'kkughurk dk izn'kZu dj e-iz- iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk 6-4 esa of.kZr fu;e (3)] (4)] (11) ds izfrdwy vkpj.k iznf'kZr djukA "
3. Alongwith the charge-sheet, the petitioner was also furnished the list of witnesses and the concerned authority, after recording the evidence of the witnesses, passed the impugned order on 16.10.2015, whereby although it was held that so far as the charge No.1 is concerned, the same is partly proved but in respect of second charge it was held that since the petitioner was found to be involved in the act of subordination which invites the invocation of para 64, Rule (3)(4)(11) of M.P. Police Regulation and in the 3 WP No.12950 of 2017 circumstances, the petitioner has been removed from the services. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No.3/Assistant Inspector General of Police (Legal-I), Police Headquarter, Bhopal but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2016 confirming the order passed by the lower authority on 16.10.2015 and being aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2016, a mercy petition has also been filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2/Director General of Police, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2017
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the act attributed to him. It is further submitted that while considering the petitioner's appeal, an opinion was sought from the Deputy Superintendent of Police regarding punishment imposed upon the petitioner and the Deputy Superintendent of Police vide his opinion dated 16.10.2015 opined that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate and the same may be reduced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of witnesses who were examined during the course of departmental inquiry namely Smt. Ishrat Jaha, Head Constable, Smt. Anita Khande, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Complaint 4 WP No.12950 of 2017 Section, Human Right Cell, Bhopal and Smt. Anjana Gupta who is also Assistant Superintendent of Police of the same department and has submitted that all these witnesses who were present on the spot has categorically stated that the Human Right Cell of the Police Department lies within the Complaint Section of the department and it is further stated by them that the petitioner has not committed any act of insubordination towards Shri S.K. Panthi, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even in the statements of Shri Panthi, he has admitted that the Human Right Cell falls within the Complaint Section itself, however, he has stated that when he asked the petitioner to keep out the Human Right Cell which is a confidential cell, the petitioner replied to him in an arrogant manner and challenged his authority on the ground that he has been appointed there in the Complaint Section only. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since it has come on record that the Human Right Cell falls within the Complaint Section of the Police Department, the presence of the petitioner cannot be said to be unauthorized in the Human Right Cell and to hold that the petitioner entered unauthorizedly in the said cell and committed an act of insubordination does not hold good. It is contended that even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner had told Shri Panthi that he may proceed against him, the same cannot be said to 5 WP No.12950 of 2017 be such an act to mandate the removal of the petitioner from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that while passing the impugned order, the past conduct of the petitioner have also been taken into account which could not have been considered.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the State has filed its reply and since there has been a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the original as well as the appellate authority, no appreciation of fact is called for under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the statements and the cross examination of the witnesses reveal that the charge of insubordination imposed upon the petitioner is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the petitioner has penalized under para 64, Rule (3)(4)(11) of M.P. Police Regulation which refers to general conditions of service. It is further submitted that Shri Panthi, who happened to be the Deputy Superintendent of Police/person with whom the petitioner misbehaved and replied to him in an arrogant manner, was a senior officer and in such circumstances, the police department being a department of discipline, such act of a delinquent officer cannot be allowed and hence, the penalty imposed upon him cannot be said to be disproportionate.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 WP No.12950 of 2017 record.
7. This Court has gone through the documents filed by the parties on record. From the perusal of the documents, it is apparent that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 13.10.2013 and was posted at Complaint section of police head quarter Bhopal. The Human Rights Cell of the police department was also annexed to the Complaint section of the police headquarter and the allegation against the petitioner is that he had entered into the confidential Hu- man Rights Cell without authorisation and at that time, he had alter- cation with Shri S.K. Panthi, Deputy Superintendent of Police which led to initiation of departmental enquiry against him. The following charges were framed against the petitioner :-
"1- fnukad 21-11-2013 dks fuyfEcr jgrs gq, ekuo vf/kdkj tSls xksiuh; izdks"B (d{k) esa vukf/kd`r :i ls igqWqapdj xksiuh; nLrkostkasa esa rkWad&>kad dj xksiuh;rk Hkaax dj lafnX/k vkpj.k iznf'kZr djukA 2- fuyEcu vof/k esa ekuo vf/kdkj izdks"B tSls xksiuh; d{k esa u vkus ds laca/k esa le>kbZl fn;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh ekSf[kd vkns'k dk ikyu ugha dj ofjs"B vf/kdkjh ds lkFk mn.Mrk ,oa vuq'kkughurk dk izn'kZu dj e-iz- iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk 6-4 esa of.kZr fu;e (3)] (4)] (11) ds izfrdwy vkpj.k iznf'kZr djukA "
8. Admittedly, the allegations against the petitioner is one of insubordination, which cannot be brushed aside lightly when it comes to police or armed forces as their very existence is based on discipline. It is true that such insubordination has to be viewed very seriously and has to be dealt with accordingly but it is also true that 7 WP No.12950 of 2017 it is the cardinal principal of justice that the punishment should com- mensurate the offence committed. The documents also reveal that a recommendation has also been made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who vide his opinion dated 16.10.2015 had opined that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the al- legations leveled against him.
9. Under these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have been too harsh in im- posing the penalty of termination from service on the petitioner as has also been opined by the D.S.P. vide his letter dated 16.10.2015.
10. As a result the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 is hereby quashed, however, with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case afresh after affording him an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
12. C.C. as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge (03/05/2018) vc/Vikram Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2018.05.04 10:56:55 +05'30'