Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 746 (MP)

Girish Kumar Shukla v. State of M. P.

2012-07-24

SHEEL NAGU

body2012
Judgment Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, Government Advocate for respondents. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India assailing order of penalty of withholding of one annual increment cumulatively and also the order of rejection of appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said penalty order. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has restricted his argument to the following two grounds: 1. That the misconduct for which the impugned penalty has been imposed cannot be categorized as misconduct since it is a mere inadvertent bona fide mistake. 2. That even assuming that the said misconduct has taken place, the said penalty cannot be imposed in view of the provisions of Regulation 226 of M.P. Police Regulations. 3. Taking the first contention, it is seen that the sole charge leveled against the petitioner was in respect of gross negligence in handling SLR Riffle leading to the weapon being fired. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out as to how and in what manner the negligence alleged in charge No. 1 is not a misconduct. The petitioner who was a constable and a member of a disciplined force is expected to handle a fire arm which is dangerous weapon with utmost care and caution. Any negligence in handling a fire arm can lead to a serious incident causing loss of life or property, besides eroding faith of public in the disciplined character of the armed force which can be highly deleterious to the moral of entire armed force. Thus this court is not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and rejects the same and holds that charge No. 1 as pointed out in the charge sheet is a misconduct. 4. As regards ground No. 2, a perusal of Regulation 226 indicates that the said provision lays down guidelines to be observed in determining the quantum of penalty to be imposed by the competent authority in respect of different kinds of misconduct. Relevant clause (vi) of Regulation 226 is reproduced below for convenience: “(vi) In the case of head constable and constables, minor offences against discipline should be dealt with, firstly, by warning, and if this proves ineffectual, by the infliction of the minor punishments specified in regulations 216 and 217(b), or by detailing the offender to a course of more irksome and unpopular duties.” 5. The above said clause (vi) has been relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner to emphasis that the petitioner should not have been straightway imposed the penalty of withholding of one annual increment cumulatively which is major punishment, but should have first been warned and if this warning proved ineffective then minor punishment specified in Regulation 216 and 217(B) could have been imposed. 6. Regulation 214 prescribes various minor and major punishment which can be imposed without prejudice to the provision of any law or any special orders for the time being inforce. On the other hand Regulation 217(b) relates to imposition the penalty of extra fatigue duty of different kinds as mentioned therein. 7. On due consideration of the rival contentions it is seen that Clause (vi) of Regulation 226 can be invoked only when minor offence/misconduct are involved. In the instant case, gross negligence has been shown by the petitioner despite being a member of armed force in negligently handling the fire arm which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as minor offence/misconduct and therefore, in the considered view of this court Regulation 226(vi) will not come into operation in the instant case. 8. There is no reason for applicability of Regulation 226(vi) in the instant case as that terminology used in Regulation 214 is of a generic nature and therefore, the scope, ambit and applicability of Regulation 214 cannot be restricted by clause (vi) of Regulation 216, thereby entitling the competent authority to impose any of 8 penalties specified in Regulation 214. 9. Pertinently, the petitioner in the instant case after receiving the charge sheet did not refute the charges alleged but in fact admitted the charges by stating that the incident of firing had occurred on account of his bona fide mistake/negligence. 10. Another aspect which dissuades this court from taking a view in favour of the petitioner is the contents of paragraph No. 5.2 of the return filed by the respondents which remain unrebutted. The respondents have contended in the said paragraph of the return that this is not the first act of misconduct in the service tenure of the petitioner as the petitioner has been found to have indulged in misconduct leading to imposition of penalty of censure and that the petitioner has earned an adverse remark in the appraisal year 2005. 11. The respondents have contended in the said paragraph of the return that this is not the first act of misconduct in the service tenure of the petitioner as the petitioner has been found to have indulged in misconduct leading to imposition of penalty of censure and that the petitioner has earned an adverse remark in the appraisal year 2005. 11. In view of the above, this court does not think it appropriate to exercise the extra ordinary plenary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be and is therefore, dismissed without any order as to cost.