The disciplinary Authority's imposition of a penalty must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense, and the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in the disciplinary proceedings.

Rohit Arya, J.

1. Petitioner taking exception to the order (Annexure P/1) dated 5/12/2014 passed by the disciplinary Authority-respondent no.4 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service; order dated 22/4/15 (Annexure P/2) passed by the appellate Authority-respondent no.3 substituting the penalty of compulsory retirement for dismissal from service, as well as, to the rejection of mercy appeal by respondent no.2 vide order dated 17/7/15, has filed the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are in narrow compass.

3. Petitioner, while serving as a Head Constable, on 8/5/2014 was assigned the duty of custody of accused Pradeep Rathore with the assistance of other three constables namely Kanti Raj (Constable No. 37), Naresh Singh (Constable No. 166) and Wasim Akhtar (Constable No. 1890). On the aforesaid day, at about 9 am, accused Pradeep Rathore was taken to J.A. Hospital for admission from Central Jail, Gwalior. The accused had undergone surgical operation on 9/5/14 and thereafter was shifted to General Ward. The petitioner and said three constables continued to be in charge of custody of the accused. On 13/5/2014, during the period 3 am to 6 am, accused Pradeep Rathore fled away from the General Ward. As a result, apart from registration of case against Pradeep Rathore as Crime Case No. 328/14 for the offences punishable under sections 224 and 225 of the IPC, respondent no.4 took a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the three constables. Accordingly, charge-sheet was issued to all the four persons and reply was solicited. Upon consideration of the reply, on 10/7/14, the disciplinary Authority decided to appoint Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer for enquiry. Thereafter, a joint enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found that at the relevant time, Naresh Singh (Constable No. 166) was on duty and due to his lapse or negligence, the accused had fled away. He had not informed either the fellow constables or the Head Constable before going to respond the call of nature, during which period, the accused had fled away i.e. between 3 am to 6 am. Under these circumstances, neither the other two constables, nor the petitioner/head constable could be held responsible for the act of fleeing away of accused Pradeep Rathore. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer did not find the charge levelled against the petitioner as proved, as well as, the other two constables but found the charges proved against Naresh Singh. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service.

4. The disciplinary Authority, however, upon appreciation of the evidence and other material placed on record, concluded that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not on correct appreciation of evidence and, therefore, opined that the findings are erroneous and consequently recorded its disagreement thereupon and issued notice (Annexure P/9) dated 30/9/14 to the petitioner and other two constables. Reply thereto was submitted by the petitioner on 6/10/14. Upon consideration of the reply, the impugned punishment order was passed dismissing the petitioner from service, which has been modified by the appellate Authority substituting penalty of compulsory retirement for the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following contentions:-

(i) Before the proceedings were initiated under Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules of 1966"), neither the Governor nor the competent Authority has passed any order for joint enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry so held stands vitiated. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to judgments in the cases of Jagdish v. State of M.P. & Others 2009(2) MPLJ 458, Jeevanram v. State of M.P. & Others 2010 (4) MPLJ SN 4 and the order passed in W.P. No. 4962/2007 Vinay Sharma v. State of MP &Ors.

(ii) The disagreement note suggests that the disciplinary A