1998 Supreme(Guj) 251

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.R.VYAS
SHAKUNTALABEN N.BACHVANI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 2092 of 1995
Decided On : 05/02/1998

Headnote:(a) The Bombay Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1956 - Rule 3(1)(a-1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 & 226 - Compulsory retirement - Petitioner acquitted in criminal case lodged for the offence under Secs. 506 & 114 IPC and under Secs. 3 & 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act - Chargesheet issued relating to same incident - Quarrels between the family members - Private quarrels has no connection with the employment - Incident took place at the residence of the petitioner - No link between the alleged misconduct & employment - Held, extreme penalty of compulsory retirement is not warranted for the family dispute which has no connection with the employment.It is really a matter of surprise that this act of the petitiioner has been treated by the department as improper behaviour. She quarrels do take place in families. In such quarrels, when exictement is too high, persons do abuse by branding others ad devils, animals and so on and so forth. Everything would calm down after their quarrel is over. It is a matter of common knowledge that persons do repeat also for their behaviour and the use of words uttered in the heat of moment during quarrel. The petitioner called Bharti as Dhedi. It at best can be described as an outbrust of the petitioner in the family property dispute quarrel and nothing more in any case. This being a private quarrel and has no connection with the employment of the petitioner. In any case, a complaint was registered against the petitioner and as the facts reveal she has been acquitted and after her acquittal with respect to the same incident the present inquiry was held against the petitioner. Taking the case on its face value, I am of the opinion that the petitioner had become the victim of circumstances. She could have avoided the incident being a Police Constable. However, her involvement in the incident in question is not such which would amount to any misconduct or an act not becoming of a police officer much less a behaviour of improper nature. This is particularly in view of the fact that the incident in question had taken place at the residence of the petitioner arising out of a family problem. It had merely a casual and remote connection with the employment of the petitioner and for that extreme penalty of compulsory retirement is totally uncalled for. In view of this finding, the punishment imposed by way of compulsory retirement under Rule 3(1)(a-1) of the Bombay Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1956 is not warranted.[Para 9](b) The Bombay Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1956 - Rule 3(2) - Allegation of uttering abusive words to police officers & behaved in indisciplined manner - Criminal case instituted against the petitioner - No evidence of abusing the police officers but she merely refused to board the jeep & tried to take off her clothes & started dancing & singing - Disproportionate penalty for the alleged charge - Provision of imposing minor penalties under Rule 3(2) for breach of indiscipline or misconduct - Held, charge is duly proved from the evidence but penalty imposed is not sustainable & set aside & respondents directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages but respondents may impose a fresh penalty as provided under Rule 3(2).The extreme penalty for the proved Charge No. 2 is quite disproportionate. Rule 3(2) of the Bombay Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules provides minor punishments which can be imposed upon a police officer, if found guilty of any breach of discipline or misconduct or of any act rendering him/her unfit for the discharge of his/her duty which does not require his/her suspension or dismissal or removal but which includes caution, a reprimand (to be entered in the service book), extra drill, fine not exceeding one months pay and stoppage of increment. In my view since the case of the petitioner, being charge No. 2 proved, falls within Rule 3(2), the maximum punishment that can be imposed is by way of stoppage of increment.

       [Para 10]Impugned order dated 9.2.1992 of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner and as confirmed vide order dated 4.2.1995 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing any of the punishments as enumerated in Rule 3(2) of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules. The Disciplinary Authority shall decide the question within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The suspension of the petitioner from 1.7.1989 to 23.7.1990 is also declared illegal and bad. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on her original post with continuity of service and full back wages, and by way of punishment for other charge proved against her, the Disciplinary Authority shall decide the question of imposing any one of the punishments as stated above. The respondents are directed to pay back wages and other consequential benefits within four weeks from the date of the passing of the order by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment on the petitioner as stated above.[Para 11]