Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-11505-2014
(GULAB SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-02-2018
Shri Mahendra Pateriya, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Chaterjee, GA for the respondents/state.
Order passed, signed, dated and annexed on a separate sheet.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
sh
SEAT AT JABALPUR
e
ad
Case No. W.P.No.11505/14
Gulab Singh
Parties Name Vs. Pr
State of M.P. and others
a
hy
Date of Judgment 26/02/18
ad
Bench Constituted Justice Sujoy Paul
Judgment delivered by Justice Sujoy Paul .
M
Whether approved for
No
of
reporting
Petitioner: Shri Mahendra
rt
Name of counsels for Pateriya, Advocate.
ou
parties Respondents : Shri Sudeep
Chaterjee, Govt.Advocate.
C
Law laid down -
h
ig
Significant paragraph
-
numbers H (ORDER) (26.02.2018) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a terminated Head Constable has challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment order of dismissal dated 3.7.2012 (Annexure P/8). The appellate order dated 12.10.12 and the order passed rejecting the petitioner's mercy appeal dated 22.4.2013 are also under challenge.
2. The petitioner while working as Constable No.1216 in Police Station-Cantt., Sagar was served with a charge sheet dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner filed his reply and denied the charges in toto. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was instituted. In the departmental inquiry certain prosecution witnesses entered the witness box to support the story of prosecution. After recording the evidence in the said inquiry, the Inquiry Officer prepared his report sh (Annexure P/5). A copy of said inquiry report was e supplied to the petitioner along with a show-cause notice ad dated 10.6.2012 (Annexure P/6). In turn, the petitioner Pr submitted the detail reply dated 19.6.2012. The disciplinary authority, by impugned order dated 3.7.2012 a inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service.
hy Petitioner's appeal and mercy appeal were dismissed by ad the competent authority.
3. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the M petitioner submits that in fact the complaint of Ms. of Sapna w/o Bablu Adiwasi was given to the petitioner on 23.3.2011 and it remained with him till 8.4.2011. On rt 8.4.2011, the Lokayukt Organization seized certain ou documents from the petitioner including the complaint of C Ms. Sapna. Thus, the complaint remained with the h petitioner for a small period of time during which he had ig recorded the statements of two persons and, therefore, it H cannot be said that petitioner kept the complaint of Ms. Sapna without further action/ inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner kept the said complaint with him for 15 days. By taking this court to the statement of witnesses, it is submitted that the witnesses have not deposed anything against the petitioner which may show that petitioner had any oblique motive. He further submits that the allegations mentioned against him does not constitute misconduct. The petitioner has categorically proved that the similar complaints were kept pending for months together by the police authorities but no action was taken against them. Reliance is placed on Annexure P/15. He further submits that the disciplinary authority has taken into account the pendency of Lokayukt case against the petitioner for imposition of punishment. The said pendency of Lokayukt case was not the subject matter of allegation in the charge-sheet and, therefore, the said reason could not have been a basis for inflicting the punishment of sh dismissal from service. Moreso, by the judgment dated e 7.3.3014 (Annexure P/16), the petitioner has been ad exonerated on merits by the Special Court. Lastly, it is Pr submitted that the documents Annexure P/13 and P/14 show that the appellate authorities have interfered with a the similar punishment and exonerated the similarly hy situated employees. Heavy reliance is placed on the ad appellate order of Head Constable No.859 Shri Ram Prasad (Annexure P/14).
M
4. Per contra, Shri Sudeep Chaterjee, GA supported the of impugned order. He submits that in the departmental inquiry, full, reasonable and effective opportunity of rt hearing was given to the petitioner. There is no flaw in ou the decision making process. The findings of Inquiry C Officer are elaborate and reasoned one. The disciplinary h authority considering the gravity of charges proved ig against the petitioner, passed appropriate order of H punishment. The appellate authorities have applied their mind and rejected the appeals by speaking order. Hence, no interference is warranted by this court.
5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on rival contentions and perused the record.
7. This is trite that scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited. If decision making process is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and such violation of natural justice has caused serious prejudice to the delinquent employee, interference can be made. Interference can also be made if the findings of Inquiry Officer are perverse. If the allegations do not constitute misconduct, the writ court can step into. Similarly, if the punishment order is extremely disproportionate and shocks the conscience of the court, impugned order can be axed. In the present case, the respondents have made following allegations against the sh petitioner in the charge-sheet :-
e ^^vkjksi i= ad vipkjh dk uke& iz-vkj- 1216& xqykc flag rRdk Fkkuk dsUV gky jf{kr dsUnz lkxjA Pr ekeys dk laf{kIr fooj.k ,oa os rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;k] tks izdj.k ds fujkdj.k esa a fopkj esa j[kuk vko';d gksA hy vipkjh iz-vk-1216 xqykc flag dks Fkkuk dsUV esa inLFkkiuk ds nkSjku vkosfndk liuk ifr ccyw ad vkfnoklh ds vkosnu i= ?kVuk LFky Fkkuk dsUV dk gksus ls Fkkuk cgsfj;k ls okfil izkIr gksus ij M iqfyl v/kh{kd dk;kZy; f'kdk;r 'kk[kk ds i= dza- 93&,@11 fn- 22-3-11 ds ek/;e ls Fkkuk dsUV izsf"kr fd;s tkus ij mDr vkosnu i= Fkkuk dsUV ea-
of dza- 113 fnukad 23-3-11 lacaf/kr iath esa ntZ fd;k x;k Fkk tkap gsrq vipkjh iz-vkj- 1216 xqykc flag rt dks fnukad 24-3-11 dks lkSaik x;kA vipkjh iz-vkj- ou }kjk vkoaVu i= fcuk tkap vius ikl yafcr j[kkA ,oa fnukad 13-4-11 dks okfil fd;k x;kA mijksDr ifjis{; esa lEikfnr tkaiksjkUr lexz C ladfyr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij h vipkjh iz-vkj- 1216 xqykc flag }kjk vkosfndk liuk vkfnoklh dk vkosnu i= fnukad 24-3-11 ig dks izkIr dj fcuk tkap dk;Zokgh fd;s 22 fnu H rd yafcr j[kdj fnukad 13-4-11 dks ;FkkfLFkfr vkosnu i= okfil dj ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa lafnX/k vkpj.k iznf'kZr djuk Ikk;k x;kA vr% eSa izeksn oekZ] iqfyl v/kh{kd lkxj vipkjh iz-vk- 1216 xqykc flag rRdk- Fkkuk dsUV gky jf{kr dsUnz lkxj ds fo:) fuEu fyf[kr vkjksi ij foHkkxh; tkap vkjksi i= tkjh djrk gwW %& ¼nks"kkjksi½ iz-vkj- 1216 xqykc flag }kjk fnukad 24-3-11 dks vkosfndk liuk vkfnoklh ds izkIr vkosnu i= ij rRijrk ls fof/k lEer dk;Zokgh u dj] ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa lafnX/k vkpj.k iznf'kZr djrs gq;s iqfyl jsX;ys'ku ds iSjk dzekad 62¼v½ ,oa 64¼c½ dh ea'kk ds foijhr vkpj.k iznf'kZr djrkA^^ (Emphasis supplied) As per this charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner is that he kept the complaint pending without conducting any inquiry from 24.3.2011 to 13.4.2011 (22 days) whereas, admittedly, the Inquiry Officer found that the complaint was kept pending for 15 days. The petitioner categorically deposed in the inquiry that the said complaint was seized by the Lokayukt Organization on 8.4.2011. Before said sh complaint was seized alongwith other documents, e the petitioner had recorded the statements of two ad persons, namely, Bablu and Chhotelal. This Pr statement of the petitioner could not be demolished during the cross-examination.
a
8. A plain reading of charge-sheet shows that the only hy allegation against the petitioner is relating to negligence ad and doubtful conduct. There is no specific allegation with accuracy and precision as to how petitioner's conduct M was doubtful. No evidence was led by the prosecution to of show that the complaint was kept pending with any oblique motive or for any improper gain. The Supreme rt court in the case reported in Union of India and others ou Vs. J.Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286 held that mere C negligence without anything else cannot be constituted h as `misconduct'. The relevant portion reads as under :-
ig â11. Code of.......It is, however, difficult H to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high...â The principles laid in the case of J.Ahmed (supra) were followed in subsequent judgments reported in Punjab State Civil Supplied Corp.Ltd. Vs. Sikandar Singh (2006) 3 SCC 736 and Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2007) 4 SCC-566. The Inquiry Officer has not given any findings based on credible evidence that petitioner's conduct was tainted with malice or his inaction was because of any personal gain or ill motive.
9. The disciplinary authority while imposing the sh punishment of dismissal from service, considered e pendency of Lokayukt matter whereas there was no such ad allegation against the petitioner in the charge-sheet.
Pr Thus, the said authority has taken into account an extraneous reason for imposing the punishment of a dismissal. Similarly, the appellate authorities have taken hy in account the past service record of the petitioner ad whereas in the charge sheet, there was no allegation M about petitioner's alleged past tainted conduct. The Supreme Court in Mohd.Yunus Khan Vs. State of of Uttar Pradesh and others-(2010) 10 SCC-539 and Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and rt another-(2010) 11 SCC-278 disapproved such action ou wherein past record was taken into account while C imposing punishment without alleging about tainted past h record in the charge-sheet. For this reason also, the ig punishment order cannot be countenanced. Further H more, the petitioner stood acquitted by the Special Court and for this reason also, the pendency of Lokayukt matter is of no assistance to the prosecution.
10. Apart from this, the record Annexure P/15 shows that the appellate authority in the case of Ram Prasad Bansal opined that inaction to submit the challan in the court is not of serious nature and, therefore, punishment of dismissal was unjustifiable.
11. As analyzed above, it is clear that the respondents could not prove that the petitioner kept the complaint pending without any progress whereas the petitioner established that he had recorded the statement of two witnesses. No oblique motive or doubtful conduct of petitioner could be established. The Special Court has already acquitted the petitioner on merits. In the punishment and appellate order the extraneous material and past conduct etc. have been considered whereas no such allegations were made in the charge-sheet. The allegations allegedly proved against the petitioner does sh not constitute misconduct. For these cumulative reasons, e in the opinion of this court, punishment order was totally ad uncalled for and unwarranted. The punishment of Pr dismissal pricks to the conscience of this court. The disciplinary authority cannot be permitted to kill a fly by a using a sledgehammer. In other words, the punishment hy must be commensurate to the misconduct. The ad punishment order is extremely disproportionate and totally uncalled for.
M
12. Resultantly, the impugned order of punishment dated of 3.7.12 (Annexure P/8) and the appellate order dated 12.10.2012 (Annexure P/10) and 22.04.2013 (Annexure rt P/12) are set aside. The respondents shall reinstate the ou petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. This C order shall be complied with within thirty days from the h date of production of copy of this order. Petition is ig allowed.
H (SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE MKL Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 2018.02.26 15:12:58 +05'30'