Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1056 (MP)

JEEVANRAM v. STATE OF M P

2009-08-28

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER was working on the post of Head constable in the Home (Police) Department of the State Government. On 16. 11. 2005 a charge sheet (Annexure-A) was issued to him as well as one b. L. Akole Inspector and Mohan Jat Constable of the same department alleging therein their inability to control the gambling / illegal betting activities while discharging their duties at Dhamnod. As per the said charge-sheet their acts were amounting to dereliction of duty, negligence and doubtful conduct on their part the said charges were enquired into by holding a joint disciplinary enquiry against all the three employees as aforesaid and in the said enquiry the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner as well as other two employees to be guilty of the alleged misconduct. ( 2. ) THE disciplinary authority third respondent after consideration of the enquiry report vide order dated 27. 05. 2006 (Annexure-O) imposed upon the petitioner penalty of demotion from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable for a period of 5 years. Through the same order the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of demotion for a period of 5 years on Inspector B. L. Akole demoting him from the post of Inspector to the post of Sub-Inspector and imposed penalty of dismissal from service on Mohan Jat Constable. ( 3. ) THE said order of penalty was assailed by the petitioner in departmental appeal before the second respondent Director General of Police. The other two employees namely B. L. Akole and Mohan Jat also challenged the order of penalty imposed upon them by filing separate appeals. All the three appeals were considered by the then Director General of Police. According to the petitioner a decision was taken by which penalty of all the three employees were reduced and they were inflicted with penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. All the three appeals were considered by the then Director General of Police. According to the petitioner a decision was taken by which penalty of all the three employees were reduced and they were inflicted with penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. However, instead of implementing the said decision as would be clear from Annexure-S a Note-sheet, after joining the said post of Director General of police the newly posted Director General of Police he ordered to maintain the penalty which was imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and also in respect to B. L. Akole, Inspector, however he reduced the penalty of dismissal from service which was awarded to Mohan Jat Constable to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect with a further direction that he will not be posted for five years on any police station. ( 4. ) THUS, according to the petitioner the action of the respondents in not implementing the decision of the then Director General of Police (Swaraj Puri) and the action of passing another order by the newly joined Director General of police (Anand Rao Pawar) is contrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohd. Rafiq Akhtarbhai Vs. State Transport Authority, Gwalior ( 1989 MPLJ 803 ). According to the petitioner, the respondents were required to do only the ministerial act of issuance of the order in pursuance to the decision Annexure-S taken by the then Director General of Police and it was not within the jurisdiction of the successor of the post Shri Anand Rao Pawar to have passed a fresh order. ( 5. ) IT is also the case of the petitioner that the said decision of Shri Anand Rao pawar Director General of Police was given effect to by dismissing his appeal vide order dated 19. 10. 2006 (Annexure - Q) whereas the appeal filed by b. L. Akole was partly allowed by the State Government vide order dated 01. 09. 2007 (Annexure-T) and the punishment imposed upon him was reduced to withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect. The appeal filed by mohan Jat Constable was partly allowed by the Director General of Police and he was inflicted with penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect vide order dated 19. 10. 2006 (Annexure-R) in place of penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal filed by mohan Jat Constable was partly allowed by the Director General of Police and he was inflicted with penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect vide order dated 19. 10. 2006 (Annexure-R) in place of penalty of dismissal from service. ( 6. ) THUS, according to the petitioner for the identical allegations and charges found to be proved in connection with the same incident the petitioner has been singled out and has been punished severely as compared to B. L. Akole and Mohan jat in whose cases a lenient view has been adopted. He alleged that the punishment imposed upon him is discriminatory. In support he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. , vs. Jitendra PD. Singh and another (2001) 10 SCC 530 , Triveni Sharan Mishra vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others 2007 (2) JLJ 425 and vishwanath Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2007 (8) Supreme 331 . ( 7. ) THE respondents have filed reply and have tried to justify their action of imposition of penalty on the petitioner. According to the respondents order annexure-S is merely a Note-sheet and as such after joining the post of Director general of Police by Shri Anand Rao Pawar he has rightly taken the decision on the appeals of the petitioner and Mohan Jat. It is also stated that appeal of b. L. Akole has rightly been decided by the State Government being the Appellate authority. ( 8. ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition and the return. ( 9. ) ON going through the charge-sheet and the order of disciplinary authority it is revealed that for the identical charges the petitioner, B. L. Akole Inspector and mohan Jat Constable were held guilty by the Enquiry Officer and they were punished. In the appeals filed by B. L. Akole and Mohan Jat the punishment was substantially reduced by the appellate authority whereas the petitioners appeal has been dismissed and the punishment of demotion was maintained. ( 10. ) HAVING regard to the law laid down in the case of Tata Engineering and locomotive Co. Ltd. , Vs. Jitendra PD. Singh and another (supra), Triveni sharan Mishra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (supra)and Vishwanath Vs. ( 10. ) HAVING regard to the law laid down in the case of Tata Engineering and locomotive Co. Ltd. , Vs. Jitendra PD. Singh and another (supra), Triveni sharan Mishra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (supra)and Vishwanath Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), I am of the view that the petitioners grievance that he has been singled out in regard to imposition of penalty by awarding a severe penalty as against the other two similarly placed employees requires to be considered by the first respondent Secretary Department of Home government of MP. ( 11. ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and take appropriate decision within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order as to quantum of punishment that can be imposed upon the petitioner. While considering the matter in regard to imposition of penalty on the petitioner, the first respondent shall keep into consideration the law laid down in the cases referred to above and the fact that the other two employees against whom a joint enquiry was conducted with the petitioner have been awarded lesser punishment as compared to the petitioner. ( 12. ) IN case the petitioner feels dissatisfied with the decision as may be taken by the first respondent he shall be at liberty to challenge such decision and shall also be at liberty to raise the grounds which he has raised in this petition more particularly pertaining to challenge to the action of not implementing the decision taken vide Annexure-S by the then Director General of Police (Swaraj Puri) and pertaining to the authority and jurisdiction to pass another order by the successor director General of Police. ( 13. ) WITH the aforesaid liberty and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.