Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 760 (MP)

Bramahanand Mishra v. Government of M. P.

2005-07-26

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This petition was originally filed before the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur on 30-9-1993, however, on account of abolition of the Tribunal, this petition has been received by this Court for its adjudication. 2. Long long back Martin Luther King has said : Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere The abovesaid quotation of Martin Luther King is quite relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition may be noticed here. The petition arises out of order of dismissal dated 7-4-1992 (Document No. 4) issued by the disciplinary authority namely Controller, Printing and Stationery, Bhopal and the order (Document No. 6) dismissing the departmental appeal of the petitioner by the State Government. The Dy. Secretary, Revenue Department intimated the petitioner in regard to dismissal of his departmental appeal. 4. The petitioner on 16-6-1989 in presence of Dy. Controller Shri Seth, misbehaved with Shri Gupta, Head Clerk and in order to cause physical injury to him he gave threat to him and also told him to leave Rewa. The said action of petitioner is in violation to Rule-3(1) of M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Eventually, a departmental enquiry was initiated and conducted in accordance to the Rules provided under M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 against the petitioner on the following charges : After conducting the enquiry the charge was found to be proved and eventually by way of punishment the petitioner was dismissed from his service vide order dated 7-4-1992 (Document No. 4). The departmental appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition. 5. The contention which has been putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are perverse since there is no clinching evidence in order to prove the charge framed against the petitioner. In this regard my attention has been drawn to the enquiry report Annexure-R/1. The contention of learned counsel is that Head Clerk Shri Gupta has stated that neither the petitioner quarreled with him nor he brandished the pistol. He has also submitted that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate looking to the facts and circumstances. In this regard my attention has been drawn to the enquiry report Annexure-R/1. The contention of learned counsel is that Head Clerk Shri Gupta has stated that neither the petitioner quarreled with him nor he brandished the pistol. He has also submitted that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate looking to the facts and circumstances. On the basis of these premised submissions, it has been submitted by learned counsel that this petition be allowed and the order dismissing his services may be quashed and the petitioner may be directed to be reinstated. 6. Combating the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been contended by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Government Advocate, that the enquiry was conducted according to the procedure prescribed under the rules and the punishment order is based on the evidence which has been adduced in the departmental enquiry. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has submitted that if the evidence which has come on record in the proceedings of the departmental enquiry, is considered in proper perspective, the only inference which can be drawn is that the petitioner misbehaved with his superior officer Shri Gupta who was serving on the post of Head Clerk in presence of Dy. Controller Shri P. C. Seth. It has also been putforth by learned Dy. Government Advocate that while exercising power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the judicial power to review the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited and this Court cannot enter in the finding of fact in order to substantiate its own finding by setting aside the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. It has been further canvassed by learned Dy. Government Advocate that looking to the gravity of the misconduct, since the petitioner has misbehaved with his superior officer, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate from any angle and, thus, the present petition sans substance and the same be dismissed. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In order to appreciate the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have seen the enquiry report of the enquiry officer (Annexure-R/1). 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In order to appreciate the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have seen the enquiry report of the enquiry officer (Annexure-R/1). On going through the enquiry report, it is gathered that the petitioner misbehaved with Head Clerk Shri Gupta who was his superior officer, in presence of Dy. Controller Shri Seth. There is specific evidence of Shri Seth also in that regard. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Secretary, Government of A.P. and Another v. M. Adinarayana, (2004) 12 SCC 579 has held that the Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which is accepted by the disciplinary authority and the said material reasonably supported the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Court to review the same and reach a different conclusion. The Court cannot ignore the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charge is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into and, therefore, the view of this Court is that the judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an appeal but only a review in a manner in which the decision was made. In the case of M. Adinarayana (supra) the Administrative Tribunal by interfering in the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the material by which conclusion was reached by the disciplinary authority, set aside the order of disciplinary authority and in that situation the Apex Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. If the ratio decidendi of this case is tested on the anvil of the present factual scenario, it is perceivable that there is sufficient material in order to support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, no case of judicial review is made out. 9. If the ratio decidendi of this case is tested on the anvil of the present factual scenario, it is perceivable that there is sufficient material in order to support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, no case of judicial review is made out. 9. On going through the enquiry report and the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority (Document No. 4) it is as clear like a noon day that the petitioner misbehaved with his superior officer in presence of another officer Shri Seth and also gave threat to him. The finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority is on the basis of the evidence placed on record that the petitioner was having a pistol in his hand and by brandishing it, he gave threat to Head Clerk Shri Gupta. The misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition at page 999 thus : A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness. Misconduct in office has been defined as : Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act. Thus, it could be seen that the word 'misconduct' though not capable of precise definition, its reflection receives its connotation from and context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. In the present case the act of misconduct of petitioner is unlawful and wrong behavior towards his superior officer. In the case of Manager, Nirmala Senior Secondary School, Port Blair v. N.I. Khan and Others, (2003)12 SCC 84 the Supreme Court held that if any act of an employee reflects upon his character, reputation, integrity or devotion to his duty, or is an unbecoming act, the employer can certainly take action against him. 10. In the case of Manager, Nirmala Senior Secondary School, Port Blair v. N.I. Khan and Others, (2003)12 SCC 84 the Supreme Court held that if any act of an employee reflects upon his character, reputation, integrity or devotion to his duty, or is an unbecoming act, the employer can certainly take action against him. 10. The Supreme Court in another decision Lalla Ram v. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. and Another, AIR 1978 SC 1004 has held that if on the basis of the material placed in the departmental enquiry, it is held that the delinquent employee obstructed the victim in the execution of his legitimate official duties by abusing, threatening and roughly handling him and thereby committed misconduct, the Court should not interfere in the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court upholding the dismissal order. The decision of Lalla Ram (supra) is also squarely applicable in the present case. 11. Since there is overwhelming material available on record, proving the misconduct of the petitioner which is very grave in nature, the view of this Court is that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate much less than shockingly disproportionate from any angle. The quotation of Martin Luther King referred hereinabove is also applicable in the present facts and circumstances because if this Court interferes in the quantum of punishment and passes any lesser punishment in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would cause injustice and it would be a threat to justice. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.