Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
K.K. Trivedi, J.
Ramakant Gautam - Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. and others. - Respondent
W. P. No. 11244 of 2009
Decided On : 01-07-2013
Disciplinary Misconduct - Service - M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 - Rule 3(1)(2)(3), Rule 10 - [Admission of guilt by petitioner, imposition of penalty without further inquiry, applicability of Rule 14(5)(a) of 1966 Rules, limited scope of judicial review]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of the District and Sessions Judge, Satna, was dismissed from service for tampering with court records. The petitioner admitted to adding unauthorized content to an order sheet, leading to the deposition of a case in the record room, which was not in line with the presiding officer's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim of a bona fide mistake was not acceptable, given his 18 years of experience in the court. The court held that the petitioner's admission of guilt and the seriousness of the misconduct warranted the imposed penalty.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's admission of guilt, the requirement for further evidence, the applicability of Rule 14(5)(a) of 1966 Rules, and the scope of judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's admission of guilt, coupled with the seriousness of the misconduct, justified the imposed penalty without the need for further evidence. The court also determined that the disciplinary authority had followed the appropriate procedure and that the scope of judicial review was limited.
Final Decision: The court upheld the dismissal from service of the petitioner, as the admission of guilt and the seriousness of the misconduct warranted the imposed penalty.
JUDGMENT :
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner ex-employee of the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Satna, has assailed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing him from the service from the post of Executing Clerk and by subsequent orders dated 13-8-2008 and 16-7-2009 appeals preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to filing of this petition are, the petitioner who was working in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Satna on the post of executing clerk at the relevant time was assigned the duty in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna. The petitioner was a reader assigned to look after the cases of jurisdiction. A list was made available to the petitioner by the Presiding Officer of the Court indicating that certain cases were to be withdrawn by the State Government and for the said purposes the application made by the State Government/prosecuting agency permission to withdraw the prosecution was granted. The petitioner was called upon to prepare the disposal of such cases and deposit the same in the record room of the Court. In one of the cases, after the type written order sheet dated 6-9-2005 certain interpolation were done by the petitioner and it was recorded as if the case was withdrawn and the same was to be deposited in the record room. However, later on the fact came to the notice of the authorities that such a case registered against one of the accused person was not to be closed withdrawn by the State Government as the evidence was available against accused person for commission of such offence and therefore such a prayer made by the State Government/prosecution agency was rejected. However, only because the order sheet was so written, duly signed by the Presiding Officer, the case was deposited in the record room.
3. When these facts came to the notice of the authorities, an inquiry was directed and the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Satna was ordered to conduct a preliminary inquiry. The said Judge conducted a preliminary inquiry submitted a report before the District and Sessions Judge, Satna that infact the Presiding Officer of the Court had refused the prayer of the prosecuting agency to grant permission to withdraw the prosecution in the said case but only because of interpolation made in the order sheet by the petitioner in his own hand writing, such a case was deposited in the record room as disposed of whereas the trial of the case was to be conducted. After receipt of this report the District and Sessions Judge, Satna issued him a charge sheet on 4-1-2008. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner which are translated in English by the Court for the purposes of convenience in following manner : -
1. That you Ram Gautam (petitioner) while was working as Executing Clerk on 6-9-2005 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna was in fact incharge of all criminal cases pending in the Court.
2. That in Criminal Case No. 1544/2002 (State of M. P. vs. Aslam) under section 25 of Arms Act the Presiding Officer of the Court has refused to grant permission to withdraw the prosecution as sought by the prosecution under section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code and passed an order on 6-9-2005 which was type written, directing that the case be put up on the date already fixed.
3. That you Ram Gautam (petitioner) added in the said order by ink on your own handwriting :
"accused is discharged from the offence under section 25-B of Arms Act, the bail bonds of the accused are discharged, the result of the case be recorded and case be deposited in the record room".
By this act you committed gross indiscipline and grave misconduct, unbecoming of a government servant. It was categorically said in the charge sheet that such a misconduct is covered by the provisions of Rule 3(1)(2)(3) of M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and is punishable
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
