Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Having considered the matter, it was ruled that deficiencies in personal character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for taking disciplinary proceedings. Negligence in performance of duty or inefficiency in discharge of duty are not acts of "commission or omission" under the relevant rules. Even error of judgment or negligence simpliciter would not constitute misconduct warranting the disciplinary proceeding against an employee. Misconduct has to have some element of delinquency, may be, even gross negligence. It is only when the allegations subject matter of charge may tantamount to misconduct that a person can be proceeded for inflicting any of the punishments prescribed in the rules. Non-performance of duties, which may have no element of unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, misdemeanour, misdeed, impropriety or a forbidden act, may sometime amount to not carrying out the duties efficiently, but the same cannot be construed to be misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings against an employee.

11. Such thus being the legal position and material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the act alleged against the applicant amount to grave misconduct rendering him liable for disciplinary proceedings or not? Having regard to the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties, to our mind, the answer must obviously be in the negative.

12. As is evident from the record that in the wake of telephonic message received by Inspector Pramod Kumar, co-delinquent of the applicant, DD No.45 dated 14.02.2008 was recorded at Police Station, Mahipal Pur that one Bahadur Alam S/o Abdul, aged 34 years was brought dead. The enquiry/investigation was entrusted/assigned to the applicant. He immediately rushed to hospital, collected MLC of the deceased, prepared the inquest report and recorded the statements of his acquaintances. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence and completed the requisite formalities. He also inspected the site. After that he informed SHO Mahipal Pur about the whole incident. The matter was also brought in the knowledge of SHO, Police Station, Mahipal Pur by Head Constable Gurinder Singh verbally on the same date.

15. Ex-facie, the argument of the learned counsel that if the allegations contained in the charge sheet are believed to be true, as such, even then, no misconduct is attributable to the applicant, has considerable force. Not only that even the learned counsel for the respondents did not point out any circumstances as to how, when and in what manner, the act of the applicant amounts to grave misconduct resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. To our mind, on the contrary, if the applicant had not acted promptly in the manner indicated hereinabove, he would have been held guilty for more serious charge of dereliction of his duty in a case of death of a person by the respondents.

17. Therefore, if the crux of pointed facts and circumstances emerging out from the record are put together and critically examined, then to our mind, conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that the charge levelled against the applicant does not constitute grave misconduct warranting the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Thus, the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities have just ignored with impunity the indicated relevant factor to punish the applicant. Indeed, if the impugned orders are allowed to stand, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the applicant, which is not legally permissible in the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case.