Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1069 (MP)

Indal Singh v. Home Secretary Government of M. P.

2002-12-04

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, DIPAK MISRA

body2002
JUDGMENT Shrivastava, J. -- Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.2000, passed by Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the Original Application No. 176/2002, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was aggrieved by the punishment of removal from his services passed on 28.11.1997 and confirmed in appeal vide order dated 27.4.1998, following the departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner, by assailing his punishment order his removal from his services and the order passed in departmental appeal, filed an original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after perusing the averments made in the original application as well as the contentions advanced on behalf of the State in the return, came to the conclusion that a full-fledged depal1mental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal did not find any illegality and infirmity in the departmental enquiry proceedings. After giving anxious consideration in respect to proportionment of the punishment imposed and after scanning the entire material placed on record the Tribunal found the Original application to be devoid of merit, as a result of which dismissed the same. Shri Dhurve, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate looking to the alleged misconduct. He has also put forth that there is no evidence at all in the departmental enquiry for holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct of consuming liquor during office working hours and thereafter misbehaving with his superior officers. By placing reliance upon a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Dixit v. Director General of Police, M.P., reported in 2002 (2) JLJ 33 = (2002) 3 MPLJ 258 , it has been contended by learned counsel that this Court should intervene in respect to the award of punishment. Combatting the aforesaid submission, Shri Ajay K. Mishra, learned Deputy Ad vocate General, vehemently argued that no case for interference in punishment is made out. The Disciplinary Authority has ascribed cogent reasons for passing the order of removal, the departmental appeal preferred by petitioner, was dismissed and nothing could be pointed out by the petitioner before the Tribunal, so as to make out a case for interference in regard to quantum of punishment. The Disciplinary Authority has ascribed cogent reasons for passing the order of removal, the departmental appeal preferred by petitioner, was dismissed and nothing could be pointed out by the petitioner before the Tribunal, so as to make out a case for interference in regard to quantum of punishment. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Narain Singh, (2002) 5 SCC 11 . After considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only in respect to the award of quantum of punishment, we have also taken into consideration the merit of the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner was found in drunken state during the duty hours, and also misbehaved with his superior officer. Dr. Soni, who was posted at the relevant time in Primary Health Centre, Parasia, medically examined the petitioner at the relevant time. He noticed that alchohal like smell was coming from his breath and mouth. He also found pupils of the petitioner mildly dilated and reaching to light. The doctor further noticed that there was mild slurring of speech. The doctor opined that the petitioner had consumed alchohal like substance. His report has been placed on record along with Annexure P-4. In the departmental enquiry, to bring the home the charges, the department examined constable Murarilal (Annexure P-l), constable Suryabhan (Annexure P-6), constable Tejlal Pahare (Annexure P-7) and Dr. P.K. Semi (Annexure P-8), and head constable Arvind Kumar Tiwari (Annexure P-9). The petitioner, for the reason best known to him, did not cross examine these witnesses. We have perused the deposition of departmental witnesses, examined before the Enquiry Officer and we find that the petitioner while remaining on duty, in his uniform, consumed liquor and was staggering and stammering; he, in presence of co-employees, misbehaved with his supenor officer by showering filthy abuses. In this view of the matter the authority passed the order of punishment directing removal of the petitioner from his services. The petitioner was in the employment of police department and it was expected of him to maintain strict discipline while on duty. However, he was found in a drunken state during the duty hours, and thereafter misbehaved with his superior officer in presence of his Co-employees. The petitioner was in the employment of police department and it was expected of him to maintain strict discipline while on duty. However, he was found in a drunken state during the duty hours, and thereafter misbehaved with his superior officer in presence of his Co-employees. This is a serious type of misconduct and is condemnable. Looking to the gravity of the misconduct and the conduct, the petitioner is not entitled for any mercy. The Supreme Court in the case of Narain Singh (supra) while deciding the case of a driver, employed in the Border Security Force, has held as under :- "Once the Court came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and were of a serious nature, it was not the faction of the Court to interfere, with the quantum of punishment. The Division Bench was wrong in holding that factors viz. (a) the person is coming from which place (b) his family background, and (c) his service record etc. were to be kept in mind. The Division Bench was also wrong in holding that if a poor person pleads guilty to the misconduct, then extreme penalty of dismissal is uncalled for. A Court must not lightly interfere with sentence passed after a properly conducted enquiry where the guilt is proved. Reduction of sentence, particularly in military, paramilitary or police services can have a demoralising effect and would be a retrograde step so far as discipline of these services is concerned. In the present case the charges were of a serious nature and the penalty was commensurate with the charges. Further the Division Bench has itself noted that this was the third time the respondent was punished. It is not for the Court to interfere on misplaced grounds of sympathy and/or mercy." (emphasis supplied) If the present factual matrix is tested on the anvil of aforesaid exposition of law, the case of the petitioner does not deserve any leniency and we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment. We are inclined to think it is absolutely proportionate. The judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind Dixit (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is distinguishable on the facts. In the result, we do not find any merit in the petition, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.