Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 645 (MP)

Murarilal v. State of M. P.

2020-05-29

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Present writ appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 19.6.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7635/2008 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2004 by which punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon him; the order dated 29.4.2006 by which his appeal was dismissed, the order dated 30.7.2007 by which his mercy petition was rejected, has filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 7635/2008 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the same. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant was appointed by the police department as a constable on 3.4.1982 and he was transferred vide an order dated 8.6.2002 from Agar to Shajapur and a charge-sheet was issued on 19.12.2003 on the ground of unauthorised absence and also on the ground of past conduct as 20 penalties were imposed upon him on account of unauthorised absence. 4. He did file a reply and the presenting officer as well as the investigating officer were appointed. After following the prescribed procedure, charges were proved against the appellant and in those circumstances, the order of dismissal from service was passed on 10.6.2004. The appeal was dismissed and the mercy petition was also dismissed. The learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos.9 to 14 of the order dated 19.6.2017 passed in W.P. No. 7635/2008 has held as under: "[9] Charge No. 1 against the petitioner was in relation to his unauthorized absent on 29.8.2003 for a period of two days. Thereafter, till 20.9.2003 for 21 days without any application and permission. Charge No. 2 was in respect of his past conduct when 20 times minor penalties were imposed with a warning to improve his conduct. In a cross-examination specific question was asked whether he was absent on 20 times, he said he was absent because his son was suffering from epilepsy disease. In support of treatment of his son, he has not filed any medical certificate. He did not examined any witness in his defence. [10] In return the respondent has given details about 20 punishments given to him from the year 1994 to 2001 and all of them are related to his unauthorized absence. He was in habit of leaving the duties and not attending the general parade without any information. He did not examined any witness in his defence. [10] In return the respondent has given details about 20 punishments given to him from the year 1994 to 2001 and all of them are related to his unauthorized absence. He was in habit of leaving the duties and not attending the general parade without any information. Details of his unauthorized absence is reproduced below: 1- fnukad 10-12- 1994 ls 28 -12-1994 rd fcuk lwpuk xSjgkftj jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 2- fnukad 21-6-1995 o 1-8-1995 dks fcuk lwpuk ;krk;kr O;oLFkk ls xSjgkftj jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 3- fnukad 21-6-1996 dks iqfyl dRrZO; dh d{kk ls fcuk lwpuk vukfèkÑr :i ls xSj gkftj jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 4- fnukad 25-6-1996 dks iqfyl dRrZO; dh d{kk ls fcuk lwpuk vukfèkÑr :i ls xSj gkftj jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 5- 24-8-1996 dks ;krk;kr O;oLFkk ikbZUV M~;wVh ij lgh 6- fnukad 18-9-1997 dks ikbUV NksM+dj ;krk;kr O;oLFkk gsrq M~;wVh djrs le; lgh M~;wVh u djus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 7- fnukad 17-6-1997 dks tujy ijsM ls xSj gkftj gksus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 8- fnukad 3-4-1998 dks jkf=x.kuk ls xSj gkftj gksdj fnukad 4-4-1998 dks mifLFkr gksus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 9- vftZr vodk'k ls fnukad 7-7- 1997 ls 17 -7-1997 rd vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 10- fnukad 31-7-1998 dh tujy ijsM ls xSj gkftj gksus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 11- fnukad 2-10-1998 dks ;krk;kr O;oLFkk M~;wVh ls fcuk crk;s vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 12- fnukad 5-3-1999 dks tujy ijsM ls xSj gkftj gksus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 13- fnukad 28-4-1999 ls 10-5-1999 rd fcuk lwpuk vukf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 14- fnukad 12-5- 1999 ls 11 -7-1999 rd fcuk lwpuk vukf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 15- fnukad 25-7-1999 dks fcuk lwpuk vukf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 16- fnukad vkdfLed vodk'k ls fcuk lwpuk vukf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 17- fnukad 26-10-1999 dks tujy ijsM ls xSj gkftj gksus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 18- fnukad 24-1-2000 dks vnkyr is'kh mTtSu ls xSj gkftj gksus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 19- fnukad 11-1-2001 dks fcuk lwpuk vukf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 20- vLirky xkMZ ls fcuk lwpuk vukf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k fuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA [11] Therefore, in view of past conduct, punishment cannot be said to be harsh. Police Regulation 226/1 clearly provides that if all the measures are failed for improving the conduct then punishment & removal from service can be imposed. The prosecution witness has stated that the petitioner was in habit of leaving the duties without informing the higher authorities. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the petitioner. In the departmental enquiry the enquiry officer has considered the evidence and submitted a detailed report which was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the departmental matter. [12] Even otherwise, the scope of interference under Article 227 in a matter of Department by the High Court is very limited. The High Court can interfere only when it is found that the enquiry officer has not followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the Departmental Enquiry. Petitioner has not raised any ground in the petition to point out that the Enquiry Officer has not followed the principles of natural justice or not followed the procedure prescribed under the law, therefore, this Court cannot re appreciate the evidence. When the petitioner did not improved his conduct, therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. [13] The petitioner has placed reliance over the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Giriraj Sharma, reported in AIR 1994 SC 215 in which due to overstaying leave for a period of 12 days, the punishment of dismissal was imposed and the apex Court remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to award the minor punishment after setting aside the punishment of dismissal. In the said case there was singular incident of unauthorized absence and that too overstaying after sanctioned leave, therefore punishment of dismissal was treated to be harsh but in the present case it was not a singular incident, but as many as 20 times he was warned for unauthorized absence and when he did not improved his conduct, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. [14] In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the punishment order. Hence petition fails and is hereby dismissed." 5. In the present case, charges have been proved in the departmental enquiry and it is nobody's case that the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer are perverse findings. [14] In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the punishment order. Hence petition fails and is hereby dismissed." 5. In the present case, charges have been proved in the departmental enquiry and it is nobody's case that the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer are perverse findings. Not only this, the petitioner has been punished right from 1982 to 2001 on 20 occasions and all of them are related to unauthorised absence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla [2008)8 SCC 469] and his contention is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the employer is having power to condone the period relating to unauthorised absence by accepting the explanation and by sanctioning the leave and condoning the misconduct. 7. The aforesaid case was not a case where an employee was habitual of remaining absent on account of unauthorised leave. The facts of the present case are distinguishable. 8. The present case is the case of uniform personnel, who was punished earlier on 20 occasions for similar misconduct and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts. 9. The apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Pateria v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2009 (1) MPLJ, 207 has upheld the dismissal of an employee on account of unauthorised absence for long period. 10. In the present case, keeping in view the totality and facts of the circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the past conduct, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. This Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority and no procedural irregularity has been established in the matter of departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent. The punishment is certainly not at all disproportionate to the guilt of the employee and, therefore, the admission is declined.