Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 183 (HP)

KISHAN CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-08-06

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2004
ORDER Ms. Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.) Chairman: Krishan Chand, applicant dissatisfied with the impugned orders Annexures A-3, A-6 and A-8 passed by the competent authorities ordering his dismissal I from service has filed this Original Application on the grounds that these orders are unjust, arbitrary and violative Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The matrix of the case is that the applicant was appointed as constable in the Police Department in 1965. He has been working as such 15.7.1995. His date of superannuation was 31.3.2004. But dismissed cut short his service. 3. Summary of allegation leveled against the applicant as per Annexure A-3 is as under:- "The duty of Constable Krishan Chand, No. 1062 police line Kaithu was announced on 10.4.1994 at the time of roll call in the evening from sub jail Kaithu to the Court of ADM, Shimla. In the morning of 11.4.1994 at 9.15 A.M. on his not coming present for being sent on duty he was looked for in the police line complex when head constable Jagdish Chand no. 3 and Moharrior Police line Kaithu informed that constable Krishan Chand No. 1062 at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning got issued one rifle but No. 363 make 303 with 25 cartridges by stating that his duty is at GPO and went away. He also signed the register. On this report was entered as report No. 7 entered in roznamcha against constable Krishan Chand No. 1062 for taking away ammunition without permission and his search was conducted in Shimla by sending police personnel of the line and Sh. Krishan Chand ASI head constable Roshan Lal No. 131/CRP constable Panna Lal No. 1145 constable Narian Singh No. 335 were sent to the house of the constable through VHF set. The local police station and the police chowki of Darlaghat were also informed about the search. A message was received from police chowki, Daraghat through VHF set in the police control room that Constable Krishan Chand No. 1062 had reached his house alongwith the rifle. In this manner the conduct of Shri Krishan Chand of taking away ammunition from the store after telling lie and to go to his house is serious misconduct and is a proof of disobedience of duty." 4. In this manner the conduct of Shri Krishan Chand of taking away ammunition from the store after telling lie and to go to his house is serious misconduct and is a proof of disobedience of duty." 4. At the close of the departmental inquiry and taking into consideration the past service of the applicant has was dismissed from service vide order Annexure A-3 which was affirmed by the appellant authority and the reviewing authority. 5. The respondents constant stand is that the dismissal of the applicant is justified. He was dismissed from the service on account of misconduct. On earlier occasion he was awarded punishment from absenting from duty and punishment awarded was stoppage of increments etc. Therefore, the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of inquiry held against him which is not liable to be quashed. 6. I have heard Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sh. Chirag B. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 7. The inquiry proceeding, serving of charges flowing from the summary of allegations cannot be termed as illegal. Rather it appears that due care has been given against the applicant. 8. The substantive prayers herein is that the authorities have not taken into consideration the long period of service of the applicant who had put in 30 years of service. He joined the service in 1965 and he was dismissed from service on 15.7.1995. This punishment awarded to the applicant is strikingly dis-proportionate. A person who is near superannuation should not have been dismissed from service summarily by taking into consideration his past record. In fact, as stated by Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was suffering from mental disorder. 9. On the scope of judicial review Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant drawn my attention to Union of Indian and another v. B.C. Chaturvedi, 1995(6) SGC 749. At page 762 under para 18 it has been observed as under:- "A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its won conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." 10. In view of the aforesaid as this Original application is pending since 1996 and that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary R Authority on the applicant by not taking into consideration the long service, but ordered dismissal from service certainly shocks conscious. The equity of justice demands that the direction should be given to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. Needful be done within three months.