The court emphasized the importance of reasonable caution and adherence to duty in justifying the penalty of compulsory retirement for negligence and reckless dereliction of duties.

ORDER :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.6.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police, District Betul as also the order dated 25.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No. 2/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhopal. Vide order dated 25.6.2005, in a departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, he has been imposed with a penalty of compulsory retirement, which has also been affirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 25.8.2005.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Police Department on 1.1.1983 and thereafter he was promoted as Head Constable on 19.10.2004. On 22.11.2004 he took one Jittu alias Jitendra, an accused to the Sessions Court, Bhopal from the Reserve Lines, Betul and while coming back from Bhopal, at the request of the said accused, the petitioner alighted from the bus and went to a Dhaba from where the accused absconded. It is an admitted fact that subsequently the accused surrendered before the police and was again arrested.

3. Shri Ayush Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that he does not wish to press the present writ petition on merits of the departmental enquiry, however, his argument is solely based on the disproportionality of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that admittedly the aforesaid accused was accompanied by two persons viz., petitioner Mishrilal and one Constable Shrawan Singh, who has also been imposed with the same penalty. It is further submitted that the surrender by the said accused in itself is a proof that the petitioner had no role to play in his absconsion. It is further submitted that the petitioner alighted from the bus at the request of the accused, who complained of going to answer the nature call and by availing of the aforesaid window of opportunity, escaped from the spot. Thus, it is submitted that no mala fide can be attributed to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted the petitioner's initial date of appointment is 1.1.1983 on the post of Constable and since then he has worked diligently for the Police Department and as the negligence on the part of the petitioner was not deliberate, he could not be awarded a major penalty of compulsory retirement. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 1 as also in the case of Kakandhar Patel (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 454.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the Regulation 216 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, the petitioner could not have been imposed penalty of compulsory retirement, as the said penalty is not provided for in the Police Regulation. It is further submitted that there is clear violation of the Regulation 217 of the MP Police Regulations. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 1 as also in the case of Kakandhar Patel (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 454.

6. Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that no case for interference is made out, as not only the petitioner was negligent in performing of his duties but he was also responsible for reckless dereliction of duties, as he not only alighted from the bus within 10 kms. from the jail but also went to