Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The further contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that if respondents were of the opinion that some mistake or there is some misconduct on the part of the petitioner is there some minor punishment should have been awarded as it was decided in earlier proceeding to award a censure entry against the petitioner As admittedly, the charges, which have been levelled against the petitioner, does not come under the definition of misconduct, therefore, there cannot be any punishment of dismissal. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is clearly disproportionate to the charges as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

15. In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner submits that the total disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated only on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity, which was necessary to follow the principle of natural justice. Another aspect of the matter is that as it does not come under the definition of "misconduct', therefore, the punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed and is liable to be quashed.

17. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record.

18. From the record, it is clear that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated only on the basis of complaint made by Miss Rana Rais. On an application made in 1997, an enquiry to that effect was made and it was found false. Subsequently, on the basis of another application dated 8.1.2001 directly submitted to the Inspector General of Police by which the * Superintendent of Police was directed to submit report regarding petitioner's conduct and the Superintendent of Police had issued a show cause notice for awarding an censure entry but on the basis of order dated 27.3.2001, the Inspector General of Police directed the Superintendent of Police, Rampur to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officer Rules, 1991 and on the basis of aforesaid fact the order was recalled and enquiry officer was appointed and a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. From the perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that one and only charge against the petitioner that he was having friendship with Miss Rana Rais and promise to marry her but the petitioner has not fulfilled his promise. From the earlier report submitted to the Inspector General of Police dated 3.3.2001 a finding to this effect has been recorded that no incident of love affair has been confirmed and it does not come under the definition of 'misconduct'. From the perusal of the show cause notice dated 12.3.2001, it is also clear that Superintendent of Police had decided to award a punishment of censure entry in his character roll for committing breach of Conduct Rules, 1956. It appears that on the basis of instigation of higher authorities, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated. From the record, it is also clear that the statement of Km. Rana Rais has been recorded one day prior the date fixed and the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity for cross examination. It is not the case of the complainant that on the basis of the aforesaid promise as stated by the respondent, the petitioner was having an illicit relation with the complainant. There is no prove to that effect. It is also apparent from the record that the complainant was fully aware regarding that the petitioner was a married man. From the record, it is also clear that when the proceedings were transferred to Meerut zone, after that no date, time and place was fixed for conducting the enquiry and the enquiry officer has submitted report. From the charges levelled against the petitioner, no charge has been levelled to this effect that the petitioner while in service has not maintained discipline and has violated any provision of the Service Rules, therefore, in my opinion, it does not constitute a misconduct as defined under the Conduct Rules of 1956 or under 1991 Rules.

23. In Union of India and Ors. v. J. Ahmed , the Apex Court while interpreting the meaning of 'misconduct' has defined what is misconduct. In para 11 and 13 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that "misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct. Paras 11 and 13 are being quoted below:

11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected to a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would he misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pearce v. Foster) (1886) 17 QBD 536 (at p. 542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct (see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) (1959) 1 WLR 698. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Railway, Nagpur Divn., Nagpur 61 Bom LR 1596 : AIR 1961 Bom 150 and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza (1969) 10 Guj LR 23. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under: