Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 963 (MP)

Ramswaroop v. State of M. P.

2010-09-22

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, BRIJ KISHORE DUBE

body2010
JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. -- 1. The order of learned Single Bench dated 15.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 6839/2003 has been assailed by the appellant/writ petitioner by filing this appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. Indeed, the appellant was serving under the employment of respondents on the post of Forest Guard. The charge, which was levelled against him, is that he assaulted his superior officer namely Badam Singh Chouhan by Lathi and thereby has committed the misconduct. The charges were found to be proved by the enquiry officer, as a result of which, Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment of dismissal from service. The departmental appeal, which was filed by the delinquent employee, met the same result. In this manner, the employee filed the writ petition before learned Single Bench of this Court. 3. The learned Single Bench by examining the material placed on record, came to hold that charge of assaulting superior officer has been found to be proved, as a result of which, looking to the limited scope of judicial review, did not interfere in the order of Appellate Authority either on the merit or on the point of quantum of sentence. 4. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order passed by learned Writ Court as well as order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no evidence even that of Bad am Singh Chouhan that Lathi blow was dealt by appellant to him and if that is the position, certainly this Court can interfere in the quantum of punishment which has been imposed by Disciplinary Authority and the said punishment of dismissal can be diluted by imposing some lesser punishment. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed heavy reliance on the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Ram Daras Yadav, (2010) 2 SCC 236 and the decision of learned Single Bench of this Court Surendra Prasad Pande v. State of Madhya Pradesh and three others, 2007 (3) MPHT 565 . In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed heavy reliance on the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Ram Daras Yadav, (2010) 2 SCC 236 and the decision of learned Single Bench of this Court Surendra Prasad Pande v. State of Madhya Pradesh and three others, 2007 (3) MPHT 565 . Learned senior counsel further submits that even if there is error of fact, judicial review is permissible and in that regard learned senior counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Mathura Prasad v. Union of India & others, (2007) 1 SCC 437 . By putting a deep dent on the order passed by Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal, it has been contended that without applying its mind, the order of dismissal awarded to the delinquent employee by Disciplinary Authority has been affirmed and if that would be the position, certainly this Court can interfere and in this regard learned senior counsel has place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and another v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147 . 6. Combating the aforesaid submission, Shri Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate, argued in support of the impugned order passed by learned Single Bench and submitted that there is no scope in this intra-court appeal because the matter has been dealt at length by learned Single Bench and hence it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Even if for the sake of arguments we accept the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the blow of Lathi, which was tried to be dealt by the appellant to the officer Badam Singh Chouhan, did not hit him and merely because the Lathi struck the roof, it would not dilute the act of appellant. According to us. since it is proved that appellant tried to assault the officer and it was his good luck that the blow did not hit his body, therefore, it cannot be said that the finding is perverse, and hence, the decision of Supreme Court Mathura Prasad and this Court Surendra Prasad Pandey (supra) are not applicable in the present case. 9. So far as the decision of Supreme Court Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. 9. So far as the decision of Supreme Court Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, according to us, overall material was taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority and if in that situation a finding has been arrived at that there is no material to deviate from the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, it cannot be said in the peculiar facts and circumstances that the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind. The learned Writ Court has also paid its heed to the entire episode of the matter and declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction. 10. Looking to the limited scope of judicial review and unless and until it is borne out that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, the same cannot be interfered with while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the scope is still more narrower in this intra-court appeal. In this manner, the decision of Supreme Court Ram Dams Yadav (supra) is distinguishable on facts wherein the order of dismissal was substituted by the punishment of reinstatement with 50% back wages. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed with no order of costs.