Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nitin W.Sambre, Abhay J.Mantri, JJ.
Gajanan Mahadeo Satpute - Appellant
Versus
Government of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 882 /2023
Decided On : 04-12-2023
DISCIPLINARY ACTION - DISMISSAL OF POLICE OFFICER - BOMBAY POLICE (PUNISHMENTS AND APPEALS) RULES, 1956 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956, particularly Rule 3, which empowers the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalties including dismissal from service. The court interpreted that the authority's decision to dismiss the petitioner was valid despite the absence of explicit mention of the rules in the dismissal order, as the authority had the jurisdiction to impose such punishment based on the proven misconduct of facilitating the escape of an undertrial. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice were upheld during the disciplinary proceedings, and the concurrent findings of the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities were supported by sufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, was charged with facilitating the escape of an undertrial, Pramod Rewatkar, and was subsequently dismissed from service after a disciplinary inquiry. He was acquitted in a criminal trial related to the same incident, but the disciplinary authority upheld the dismissal based on the findings of misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the evidence supported the conclusion that the petitioner had indeed facilitated the escape of the undertrial. The dismissal was deemed appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was justified despite his acquittal in the criminal trial, and whether the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the standards for disciplinary proceedings differ from criminal trials, and an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate disciplinary actions. The court affirmed that the disciplinary authority had the power to impose dismissal based on the proven misconduct, and the absence of explicit references to specific rules in the dismissal order did not render it invalid.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service as justified and proportionate to the misconduct committed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. On April 07, 2010, the petitioner having facilitated the escape of an undertrial namely Pramod Rewatkar was charge-sheeted in Form-1 by the Authority.
3. Subsequent thereto, he was served with the charge-sheet and an offence came to be registered against him vide Crime No.152 of 2010 for an offence punishable under Ss. 224 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner thereafter was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal trial vide judgment dated September 16, 2019 delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No.4), Wardha for an offence punishable under Ss. 225 and 119 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On June 08, 2010, the Disciplinary Authority framed the charges against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was served with the final order dated May 15, 2018 of dismissal from service in exercise of powers vested under the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956 (for short, 'the Rules of 1956').
6. Forming the acquittal by the Criminal Court as basis, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order dated September 29, 2018 confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority was upheld by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) in the revision vide order dated July 01, 2019 thereby confirming both the orders.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred Original Application No. 738 of 2020 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on September 21, 2022. As such, this petition.
8. The contention of Shri T. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner is, perusal of the order of dismissal delivered by the Disciplinary Authority does not refer to the violation of any Rule or breach of statutory provision. According to him, the available material is not sufficient enough to order dismissal of the petitioner from service. His further contention is, appropriate opportunity of hearing was not offered by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite our attention to the observations in the order of the Disciplinary Authority to urge that even though the enquiry was ordered against the four delinquents, it is only the petitioner who was punished in the present case thereby victimizing him.
9. The In-Charge Government Pleader would support the orders impugned. According to him, all the three Authorities so also the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has in detail considered the claim put forth by the petitioner and has reached to a conclusion that the petitioner is prima-facie involved in the act of facilitating the escape of an undertrial, who later on expired. According to him, merely non-mentioning of the provision does not render the orders illegal as long as it is not disputed that the powers vest with the Authorities to order termination. As such, he would urge that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have considered the rival claims based on the documents available on record.
11. It is not in dispute that the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the respondent no.2-Superintendent of Police. The respondent no.2 accordingly issued the charge-sheet and after considering the material placed on record imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. Such order is passed by the respondent no.2 in exercise of Rule 3(1), (A-2) and 3 of the Rules of 1956. A specific finding is recorded by the Disciplinary Authority that the conduct of the petitioner is quite serious as he has involved himself in the most irresponsible and mala fide act not befitting the status of a police official. In support of the said finding, the Disciplinary Authorities has appreciated
The court established that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials operate under different standards, and an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action for misconduct if ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in imposing disciplinary action, the requirement for clear and specific charges in a domestic inquiry, and the sco....
Punishment of dismissal of service should be awarded for gravest act of misconduct.
In disciplinary proceedings, charges can be established on the preponderance of probabilities without strict adherence to evidentiary rules, allowing for a reasonable penalty if evidence suffices.
A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indisciplin....
Dismissal of a civil servant without proper inquiry violates constitutional safeguards and is arbitrary; procedural requirements must be strictly followed.
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
