Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2016
-1-
Writ Petition No.4844/2015
21/06/2016
Mr. L. C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Neelam Abhyankar, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by an order passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority dated 04/04/2014 by which a major punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 03/12/2014 passed in appeal by Director General of Police.
2- The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Inspector in Reserve Scheme, Dhar (Police) and it is alleged that he was unauthorizedly absent from the duty on 14/09/2012. It is also alleged that on 03/10/2012 at Indore, he took an auto rickshaw and purchased a bottle of liquor. It is further alleged that after consuming liquor, he assaulted the auto driver and misbehaved in public.
3- On the basis of the aforesaid incident, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 04/10/2012. A Preliminary Enquiry took place in the matter and in the Preliminary Enquiry, the petitioner was not associated in any manner. It was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, City Superintendent of Police, Pithampur, Distt. -2- Dhar submitted a preliminary enquiry report. It has been argued by Shri Patne that at no point of time, the petitioner was associated with the preliminary enquiry.
4- The facts of the case further reveal that the petitioner's suspension order was revoked approximately after 15 days by an order dated 27/10/2012 and a charge sheet was issued on 19/11/2012 levelling of two charges of misconduct. The first charge was that on 03/10/2012 under the influence of alcohol, the petitioner has abused the common public and has also abused the senior officers of the department and has assaulted the auto rickshaw driver. The second charge relates to violation of conduct rules on account of incident which took place on 03/10/2012.
5- The petitioner has submitted a detailed and exhaustive reply to the competent disciplinary authority and has categorically denied the allegations levelled in the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority has passed an order imposing a punishment of Rs.1,000/- upon the petitioner by an order dated 29/12/2012.
6- It has been further contended that the Inspector General of Police has taken suo-motu cognizance of the matter by issuing a show cause notice, by invoking the provision of regulation 270 of the Police Regulation. The petitioner did submit a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and denied the allegations made against him and has also informed the Inspector -3- General of Police that he is the member of Scheduled Caste and has received as many as 367 awards out of which 8 are special awards.
7- The Inspector General of Police by an order dated 09/06/2013 has finally passed an order directing the disciplinary authority to conduct a regular departmental enquiry as provided under Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Thereafter, a Presenting Officer and an Enquiry Officer was appointed by order dated 11/06/2013. 8- Shri Patne has vehemently argued before the Enquiry Officer has acted as an Presenting Officer in the present case. He has conducted very extensive examination-in-chief of the petitioner which is consisting of as many as 45 questions (Page No.64) and the Presenting Officer while submitting his brief has also observed that the Enquiry Officer has conducted a detailed examination-in-chief of the delinquent officer. 9- Shri Patne has argued before this Court that the Enquiry Officer while cross-examining the witness has not at all asked all the clarificatory questions which are permissible, on the contrary, he has conducted a very extensive cross-examination (Page No.39 and 42). He has also read out the statements of the auto rickshaw driver, on the basis of whose statements, a show cause notice was initially issued to the petitioner. The statement of the auto driver reflects that it was not the petitioner who has misbehaved with him. The auto rickshaw driver in the enquiry has -4- stated that the he was told to sign a blank paper during the Preliminary Enquiry and he has signed the blank paper and no such incident has taken place in his presence. 10- Shri Patne has vehemently argued before this Court that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, reflects that the findings are not supported by evidence and therefore, consequential order of compulsory retirement dated 04/04/2014 deserves to be quashed. He has also stated that the order passed by the appellate authority, by which the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner, also deserves to be set aside. It has also been argued that the appellate authority has stated in its order that the present petitioner was earlier also punished on four occasions for consuming alcohol and his contention is that at no point of time in entire service carrier the petitioner was punished for consuming alcohol. He submits that the appellate order also deserves to be set aside. 11- Shri Patne has also argued before this Court that the entire action against the petitioner is based upon the media report and the media report was not the part of the departmental enquiry and they were not exhibited during the departmental enquiry to prove the allegation. He submits that the media report published in the news paper is of no evidentary value unless and until it is proved.
12- The order passed by the competent disciplinary authority reveals that the enquiry was finalized by the disciplinary -5- authority by taking into account the news paper clippings in respect of the incident which took placed on 03/10/2012. 13- Shri Patne has also argued that the petitioner on account of illness submitted a leave application and was not present on duty and a certificate in this regard is on record in form No.4 which is duly signed by the Government Doctor. His contention is that the Enquiry Officer has safely ignored the medical certificate as he was bent upon to held the petitioner guilty and therefore, Shri Patne prays for quashment of impugned orders.
14- On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has vehemently argued before this Court that the question of interference by this Court in respect of the punishment orders dated 04/04/2014 and 03/12/2004, does not arise. She has stated that the petitioner was posted at Dhar and was unauthorizedly absent from the duty on 14/09/2012 and 03/10/2012 (for two days). She has also argued that he came to Indore and misbehaved with public at large and also with the officers of the police and therefore, as he is indisciplined man, he has rightly been terminated from the services.
15- She has further argued that the respondents have conducted a Preliminary Enquiry and finally a punishment of imposing fine of Rs.1,000/- was inflicted upon him by an order dated 29/12/2012. The respondents have further stated that they have subsequently issued a show cause notice for holding the -6- Departmental Enquiry and the notice was issued by the Inspector General of Police who is the revisional authority keeping in view the Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation. 16- It has been further stated that the departmental enquiry was conducted by the respondent and thereafter, the enquiry officer has submitted a report after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. It has been stated that appeal was dismissed and thereafter, the mercy petitioner has also been dismissed. 17- The respondent have also stated that the petitioner has misbehaved in public after consuming liquor and has caused a dent to the image of Police Department and therefore, the punishment order does not warrant any interference. The respondents have also stated that after the petitioner was compulsory retired, he has again consumed liquor and has misbehaved with general public and the respondents have enclosed news paper clippings in support of the aforesaid averment. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
18- Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
19- In the present case, the petitioner a police officer has been inflicted by a punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 04/04/2014 and the appeal has been dismissed on -7- 03/12/2014 by the appellate authority. The mercy petition has also been dismissed on 25/08/2015. As per the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner has consumed alcohol and came to MIG, Police Station. He has assaulted the auto driver and has abused the senior officers of the department. A Preliminary Enquiry has taken place in the matter and it is an undisputed fact that the Preliminary Enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 04/10/2012 and his suspension was immediately revoked on 27/10/2012. A charge sheet was issued on 19/11/2012 and on 29/12/2012 a punishment of Rs.1,000/- has been inflicted upon him.
20- Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation and the petitioner did file a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. The Inspector General of Police was heavily influenced by the news paper clippings has passed an order on 09/06/2013 (Page No.32) directing a Departmental Enquiry in the matter and the punishment order dated 29/12/2012 was quashed.
21- The last paragraph of the order passed by the Inspector General of Police (Page No.33) reveals that he has taken into account the news paper report published in a news paper and also the Preliminary Enquiry report, meaning thereby, on the basis of the news paper report and the Preliminary Enquiry which was held behind the back of the petitioner, the Inspector -8- General of Police has passed the order.
22- Thereafter, a Departmental Enquiry was held and it is an undisputed fact that the Enquiry Officer has conducted examination in chief of the petitioner which contains as many as 45 questions which is an extensive examination-in-chief (Page No.64). The Presenting Officer in his written brief (Page No.99) has categorically stated that a lengthy examination-in-chief was conducted by the Enquiry Officer.
23- Not only this, the Enquiry Officer has also conducted cross-examination of material witness (Page No.39 and 42). The questions asked by the Enquiry Officer are not at all clarificatory questions and he has conducted cross-examination at length. This establishes that the Enquiry Officer has not acted as a judge but has acted as a prosecutor.
24- The another important aspect of the case is that as per the imputation of misconduct the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and has assaulted the auto driver and has also abused senior officers of the department. At no point of time the authorities have taken pains to get the petitioner medically examined. There is no medical examination report on record. On the contrary, the auto driver during his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that the petitioner has never purchased any liquor from any liquor shop nor has assaulted him at any point of time. During his cross-examination also he has retreated that at no point of time, the petitioner has abused him or has abused any -9- other person or was under influence of the liquor. It was the auto driver who was the prime witness and on whose complaint the entire action has taken place.
25- The cross-examination of auto driver conducted by the Presenting Officer reads as under:-
**dwV ijh{k.k }kjk izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh Jh fot;'kadj f}osnh uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd /kkj ftyk /kkj &% iz'u&1 vki vkWVks pykrs gks\ mRrj gkW eSa vkWVks pykrk gwA iz'u&2 vkWVks Lo;a dk gS vFkok HkkM+s dk gS\ mRrj& vkWVks HkkMs dk gSA iz'u&3 vkWaVks ekfyd dk uke D;k gS vkSj fdl Bsdsnkj ds v.Mj esa vkWaVks pykrs gks \ mRrj& ftl le; esjs lkFk ?kVuk gqbZ Fkh ml le; eSa vkWaVks ekfyd jkenkl dkdkth dk fjD'kk pykrk Fkk] ftlds Bsdsnkj larks"k xks;y Fks] iz'u&4 ?kVuk ds le; dkSu lk vkWaVks HkkM+s dk pyk jgs Fks mRrj& ?kVuk ds le; eSa vkWVks ,eih 09&Vh&7770 pyk jgk Fkk\ iz'u&5 vkWaVks fdrus cts ls fdruh cts rd vkWaVks pykrs gS\ mRrj& eSa lqcg 08-00 cts ls jkf= 12-00 cts rd vkWaVks bankSj esa fdjk;s ls pykrk gwA iz'u&6 vki jkf= 09-30 cts ?kVuk fnukad 03-10-12 dks dgk ij Fks\ mRrj& eq>s ;kn ugh gS] eSa ml fnukad dks dgka ij Fkk A iz'u&7 xaxoky cl LVS.M ls fnukad 03-10-12 dks jkf= esa vkWaVks ls dksbZ lokjh fot; uxj tkus gsrq cSBkbZ xbZ Fkh A mRrj& esjs }kjk ,d lokjh cSBkbZ xbZ Fkh A iz'u&8 vkWaVks esa cSBh lokjh }kjk jkteksgYys dh 'kjkc nqdku ls ,eMh dh cksry [kjhnh Fkh\ mRrj& ugha [kjhnh FkhA iz'u&9 vkWaVks esa cSBh lokjh }kjk dksbZ xkyh&xykSp o FkIiM+ ekjk Fkk A mRrj& ughaA iz'u&10 vki xkyh&xykSp ,oa FkIiM+ ekjus ds dkj.k Fkkuk ,evkbZth bankSj x;s Fks mRrj& ugh x;k Fkk A iz'u&11 ogka ij iqfyl okys vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh vk x;s Fks A
- 10 -
mRrj& dksbZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ugha vk;s Fks A iz'u&12 vkWaVks esa cSBh lokjh dks iqfyl Fkkus esa gh NksMd + j vk x;s FksA mRrj& esjs }kjk dksbZ lokjh ugh cSBh Fkh A iz'u& iz'u&13 fnukad 10-10-12 dks uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd ihFkeiqj Jh fodzeflag dks tks dFku rqeus fn;s Fks] mu dFkuksa esa mYysf[kr rF; iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds ncko esa vkdj ?kVuk dh lgh tkudkjh ugh crk jgs gksA mRrj& ughaA iz'u&14 dksbZ izyksHku ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds ncko ds dkj.k vki lgh dFku ugha ns jgs gks\ mRrj& eq>s dksbZ izyksHku ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh dk ncko ugh gS] D;kasfd eSa vkWaVks fjD'kk pykrk gaw vkSj esjs vkWaVks esa dbZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh cSBrs jgrs gSA** 26- Inspite of their being a categorical denial on the part of the person who has informed the police, the petitioner has been punished. The petitioner was not well and as stated by him, he did submit an application for leave and an entry was also made in this regard in 'Rojnamcha Sanha' 823 / 14/09/2012. The petitioner after availing the leave has reported back on duty and has also submitted a fitness certificate issued by the competent Government Doctor, however, for the reasons best known to the Enquiry Officer, the 'Rojnamcha' was not summoned and the Enquiry Officer without their being any evidence of unauthorized absence has held the petitioner guilty.
27- The Enquiry Officer in the concluding paragraph (Page No.128) has concluded that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and has abused senior officers of the department. However, he has held that charge in respect of alleged misbehaviour with common public is not proved. In the
- 11 -
present case, there was a composite charge as reflected from the charge-sheet. It is reflected that on 03/10/2012, the petitioner under the influence of liquor has abused the common public and has used unparliamentary language towards senior officer of the department.
28- The genesis of the charge was that the report lodged by the auto driver and who was examined in the Preliminary Enquiry, has categorically stated in the departmental enquiry that the petitioner has not used any unparliamentary language at any point of time. Charge has been proved only on the basis of the Preliminary Enquiry report and on the basis of the news paper clippings as well as on the basis of statements of other police personnels and not on the basis of the statement of auto driver who was present at the time the incident which allegedly took place in the police station.
29- The another important aspect of the case is that a large number of people were present at the time incident. Not a single independent witness has been examined by the Enquiry Officer in the matter and based upon the Preliminary Enquiry which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been punished in the manner it has been done. In fact the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer are perverse findings and therefore, the consequential punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the order passed by the
- 12 -
authority dismissing the mercy petition has to pave the path of extinction.
30- Shri Patne has vehemently argued before this Court that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent, the authorities were required to prove that it was a willful absence. He has heavily placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178. He has placed reliance on paragraph No.17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment and the same reads as under:-
"17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant.
18. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct."
31- In the present case, the petitioner's absence was not a willful absence. He has submitted an application for leave and on account of illness he was absent only for a day. Subsequently, he has submitted a medical fitness certificate also, issued by competent government doctor and therefore, the alleged
- 13 -
misconduct relating to absence, if any, will not amount to misconduct.
32- Not only this, in another case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2015(1) MPLJ 632 in paragraphs No.29 and 30 has held as under:-
"29. Further, assuming for the sake of argument that the unauthorised absence of the appellant is a fact, the employer is empowered to grant of leave without wages or extraordinary leave. This aspect of the case has not been taken into consideration by the employer at the time of passing the order of termination. Therefore, having regard to the period of unauthorised absence and facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to treat the unauthorised absence period as leave without wages. In our view, the termination order is vitiated since it is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged against him. The employment of the appellant-workman with the respondent is the source of income for himself and his family members' livelihood, thereby their liberty and livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is denied as per the view of this Court in its Constitution Bench decision in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. wherein it was held as under:-
"32.....The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would
- 14 -
not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be In accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life....."
30. The appellant workman is a conductor in the respondent-statutory body which is an undertaking under the State Government of Haryana thus it is a potential employment. Therefore, his services could not have been dispensed with by passing an order of termination on the alleged ground of unauthorised absence without considering the leave at his credit and further examining whether he is entitled for either leave without wages or extraordinary leave. Therefore, the order of termination passed is against the fundamental rights guaranteed to the workman under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the statutory rights conferred upon him under the Act as well as against the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. This important aspect of the case has not been considered by the courts below. Therefore, the impugned award of the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court are liable to be set aside."
33- In the aforesaid case the apex Court has held that in case of unauthorized absence, the employer is empowered to grant of leave without wages or extraordinary leave. In the present case, the same could have be done in case of alleged unauthorized absence, if any, of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the petitioner not at all unauthorizedly absent on that
- 15 -
particular day. After submitting application the petitioner has left Dhar and came to Indore and therefore, the charge sheet and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and consequential orders deserves to be quashed.
34- In the present case, the petitioner has been made victim of media trial. The Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority have placed heavy reliance upon the news paper clippings and the Preliminary Enquiry report which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. In Departmental Enquiry, documentary evidence has to be proved in the manner other documents are required to be proved. The contents of documentary evidence has to be proved by examining the witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 398 in paragraph No.14 has held as under:-
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence."
35- Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment as in a
- 16 -
mechanical manner, the Enquiry Officer has treated the news paper report as gospel truth, the Enquiry Officer report stands vitiated. Not only this, the Preliminary Enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner has also been relied by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, in light of aforesaid judgment the inquiry report deserves to be quashed.
36- Shri Patne has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Narendra Mohan Arya Vs. United Indian Insurance Co. ltd. and Others reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 840. Paragraph No.26 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"26. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to interfere in a case where the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ court, in the event the findings arrived at in the departmental proceedings are questioned before it should keep in mind the following: (1) the enquiry officer is not permitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry. [See State of Assam & Anr. V. Mahendra Kumar Das & Ors.[ (1970) 1 SCC 709 : AIR 1970 SC 1255] (2) In a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice [See Khem Chand V. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 300 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969) 3 SCC 775]. (3) Exercise of discretionary power involve two elements
(i) Objective and (ii) subjective and existence of the exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of the subjective element. [See K.L. Tripathi V. State of Bank of India & Ors. [ (1984) 1 SCC 43 : AIR 1984 SC 273]. (4) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the principles of natural
- 17 -
justice which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. [See Sawai Singh V. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1986 SC 995] (5) The enquiry officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject matter of the charges is wholly illegal. [See Director (Inspection & quality Control) Export Inspection Council of India & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Kumar Mitra & Ors. [ 1987 (2) CLJ 344]. (6) Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. The writ court is entitled to interfere with the findings of the fact of any tribunal or authority in certain circumstances. [See Central Bank of India Ltd. V. Prakash Chand Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 10]."
37- In the aforesaid case, the apex Court has laid down the parameters for conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry. Shri Patne has vehemently argued that the Enquiry Officer without there being any evidence against the petitioner that he was intoxicated, has proceeded ahead with the enquiry. There is a procedure prescribed to conduct the medical examination but the same was not done for the reasons best known to the authorities and therefore, as the procedure prescribed under the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the procedure prescribed by the apex Court has not been followed, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are perverse findings and are hereby quashed.
38- The present case reflects it is a very sorry state of affairs in the matter of conducting the departmental inquires, the Enquiry Officer on the basis of news paper clippings and on the
- 18 -
basis of Preliminary Enquiry Report held the petitioner guilty and he has been thrown out of the job without their being any substantive evidence.
39- Media has succeeded in the present case in getting the petitioner thrown out of the job. The most shocking aspect of the case is that the Preliminary Enquiry has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner while establishing the charges against the petitioner. The Inspector General of Police who has issued notice to the petitioner has also taken into account the media report and the Preliminary Enquiry Report. The disciplinary authority has also taken into account the media report and the Preliminary Enquiry Report. The respondents have thrown the petitioner out of the job without there being any material evidence. 40- The respondents have filed return after compulsorily retiring the petitioner and have stated that the petitioner has again consumed alcohol. The news paper clipping in this regard has also been enclosed alongwith the return as Annexure-R/3. It appears that the petitioner is being chased by the respondents even after the relationship of master and servant has come to an end.
41- The appellate authority while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has categorically written in its order that the petitioner was punished earlier on four occasions for consuming alcohol. The petitioner who is a bright police officer has received as many as 367 awards and at no point of time was punished for
- 19 -
consuming alcohol on duty. There is a categorical ground taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondents have not at all denied the aforesaid averment. It means that the appellate authority has also not at all considered the service record of the petitioner and based upon some incorrect information which was supplied to the appellate authority by its sub-ordinate officer has dismissed the appeal in a most casual and mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner has not received any adverse remark in his 28 years of his service carrier and he has been thrown out of the job in the most casual and mechanical manner.
42- Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and Annexure-P/5 dated 29/12/2012, Annexure-P/19 dated 04/04/2014 passed by the disciplinary authority and Annexure-P/21 dated 03/12/2014 passed by the appellate authority and order dated 25/08/2015 passed in mercy petition are hereby quashed. The petition stands allowed with the following directions:-
a) The respondents in light of the present judgment shall pass an appropriate order in the matter of payment of full pay, allowances and regularization for the period the petitioner was under suspension i.e. w.e.f.
04/10/2012 to 27/10/2012.
b) The petitioner is out of job since 04/04/2014 and he has been compulsorily retired and therefore, so far as grant of back wages is concerned, the amount paid towards pension shall be adjusted towards back
- 20 -
wages and there will be no recovery from the petitioner in respect of the amount paid to the petitioner as pension. However, he will not be entitled for any further back wages for the period he was out of the job and the period shall be treated as spent on duty for all the purposes except for back wages.
c) It has also been stated by Shri Patne that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the next higher post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and further next higher post. In case, the petitioner has been found fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by the DPC, the benefit of promotion to the petitioner be extended within a period of 30 days from today with all consequential benefits.
d) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service.
With the aforesaid, writ petitions stands allowed. No order as to costs. C. C. as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej