Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 667 (MP)

Ambaram Vaskale v. State of M. P.

2023-07-21

VIVEK RUSIA

body2023
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.2005, whereby he has been terminated from the service by the Superintendent of Police, Khargone and also against the order dated 22.1.2006, whereby the appeal has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the Superintendent of Police. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under:- 2.1. The petitioner was working as a Constable and posted at Police Line Barrack, Khargone. He was placed under suspension on the charge that on 10.5.2005 near about 24:00 hours, in uniform, he consumed the liquor, went to the Barrack of the Police Line and abused / misbehaved with the newly recruited Constable and other employee. The said incident was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.614 / 10.5.5. He was medically examined and found in an intoxicated condition. On 11.5.2005 near about 8:00 am, he again consumed the liquor and went to the Bajrang hotel situated in front of the Police Line and abused the employees. The report was recorded in the Rajnamcha Sanha No.635 / 11.5.2005. Again he was medically examined and found in a drunken condition. On the basis of the aforesaid incidents, a charge-sheet dated 14.6.2005 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Khargone and the petitioner was called upon to submit a reply within seven days. 2.2. Shri Santosh Singh Bhadoria, Station House officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer examined 16 certificates and 11 witnesses. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing to defend himself. The enquiry report was submitted in which both the charges were proved against him. The enquiry report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Khargone and a second show-cause notice was issued for submitting the reply / objection. The petitioner submitted reply that he was perturbed with the family problems, hence, consumed the liquor and was sleeping in the house. The newly appointed Constables were teasing him and falsely implicated him. He also sought pardon as he was the sole earning member of the family. The Superintendent of Police did not find substance in his reply and passed the order of dismissal from services. 2.3. The newly appointed Constables were teasing him and falsely implicated him. He also sought pardon as he was the sole earning member of the family. The Superintendent of Police did not find substance in his reply and passed the order of dismissal from services. 2.3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Nimad Range, Khargone contending that for Charge No.1, he admitted his guilt and as per Paragraph – 224 of the Police Regulation, the mistake ought to have been considered sympathetically. It is further submitted by him that no separate finding has been given in respect of Charge No.2. It has further been submitted that he belongs to the tribal community, therefore, he consumed the liquor. The appellate authority examined his service record according to which, the petitioner had earned 74 rewards, 10 minor penalties and one big penalty, therefore, the learned appellate authority confirmed the punishment awarded by the learned Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, he preferred a mercy petition before the Director General of Police which has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.6.2006. Hence, the present writ petition is before this Court. 2.4. The respondents have filed a reply by submitting that the action has rightly been taken as per Paragraph – 214 of the Police Regulation. By the conduct of the petitioner, the image of the police in the public was tarnished, therefore, punishment for the removal of service has rightly been passed which entitles him ineligible to secure the employment in future. Being a member of a disciplinary force, he should have behaved in a decent manner in public . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was under suspension from the period w.e.f. 11.05.2005 to 15.9.2005, thereafter, he was removed from service on 5.11.2005. Since last 18 years, he is out of employment. At the time of termination, he was 36 years of age. During his service, he won 74 rewards, therefore, the punishment of removal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to proven misconduct. The petitioner is not assailing the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officers, but praying for mercy for his reinstatement in the service with 50% of backwages as he has suffered a sufficient amount of punishment. Being a member of the Schedule cast community, he deserves one opportunity to prove himself. 4. The petitioner is not assailing the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officers, but praying for mercy for his reinstatement in the service with 50% of backwages as he has suffered a sufficient amount of punishment. Being a member of the Schedule cast community, he deserves one opportunity to prove himself. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State argued in support of the impugned action by submitting that the petitioner being a police person was not supposed to consume liquor and create a nuisance in the police line as well as in public which is not expected from the member of a disciplined force. Earlier also he was imposed with a penalty of stoppage of one increment as a minor penalty and as a major penalty, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Taking into consideration of his entire service records and present misconduct, punishment of removal from service has rightly been implicated. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Since the petitioner is not assailing the findings on merit, therefore, there is no need to examine the same. The petitioner is assailing the impugned orders on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate to the proven misconduct, therefore, this Court can interfere and reduce the same by imposing proper punishment. 7. It is correct that on 10.5.2005 and 11.5.2005, the petitioner in a drunken condition, created the nuisance, hence, committed a misconduct. He took a defense that due to family problem, he was not in a fit state of mind. Nature of duties of the police person is so difficult as they are required to work day and night without any time to take rest or leave. The suicide by member of disciplined force are because of their nature of jobs and duties. There is no allegation that he committed any offence of corruption or tried to extract money or tried to implicate any person falsely or misused the power. In drunken condition, he misbehaved with his colleague police personnel which is an objectionable conduct but punishment of removal from service is highly excessive keeping in view the fact that he had 74 awards in his credit. He belongs to the tribal community. In drunken condition, he misbehaved with his colleague police personnel which is an objectionable conduct but punishment of removal from service is highly excessive keeping in view the fact that he had 74 awards in his credit. He belongs to the tribal community. In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabd, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 in paragraph 19, it is observed and held as under: “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/ departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the codelinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of chargesheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 8. Therefore, in the interest of justice, all the punishment orders are quashed. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 8. Therefore, in the interest of justice, all the punishment orders are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Superintendent of Police to pass appropriate punishment except removal / termination from service. The petitioner be reinstated into the service without backwages. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.