ORDER

1. This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 27.1.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1133 of 2007, whereby, petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Police (Home) Department on 1.1.1983 and thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable on 19.10.2004. On 22.11.2004, while he was taking back an under trial prisoner who was facing trial for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, namely, Jittu @ Jitendra from Sessions Court, Bhopal to Betul Jail, the said accused absconded. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 3.1.2005. The petitioner denied the charges. A regular departmental enquiry was constituted. Enquiry report dated 9.4.2005 was sent to the disciplinary authority and the petitioner was also served with a notice dated 20.5.2005 along with the enquiry report to submit his comments. The disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 25.6.2005. The petitioner thereafter preferred a departmental appeal which was also rejected vide order dated 25.8.2005. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, he is in present intra Court appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that he is confining his submission only on the proportionality of the penalty. He submits that even before the learned Single Judge he had only questioned the proportionality of punishment. According to him, looking to the nature of the misconduct, the punishment of compulsory retirement is shockingly dispropotionate and the same calls for interference in the present intra Court appeal.

4. We do not agree with the submissions put forth by the counsel for the appellant and we find that learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Others and P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610] has held that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution should not go into the proportionality of the punishment unless the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court. The aforesaid settled legal position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. M. Mangayarkarasi, [(2019) 15 SCC 515] that the imposition of penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer. Unless the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges which are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed to the employer cannot be interfered with.

5. The nature of the allegation and the evidence which has come on record, clearly proves that on the date of incident when under trial prisoner of a heinous offence was being taken back to the District Jail, 10 km before the destination, the vehicle was stopped at Mohan Dhaba, where, the accused Jittu @Jitendra along with other prisoners had a meal and the evidence suggests that Jittu @ Jitendra was not even handcuffed at the relevant point of time. The duties and responsibilities of the Police Force to maintain law and order goes to the root of a civilized society and to that extent are higher than any other government servant. The Police officers are the custodian of the faith of the people and if such faith is betrayed, the same is bound to convey a feeling of insecurity in the minds of common man. Considering the nature of the allegations and the misconduct, even the order of compulsory retirement is on the lighter side.

6. In the case of Secy. to Govt., Home Deptt. v. Srivaikundathan, [(1998) 9 SCC 553] a police constable was found guilty of dereliction of duty as a prisoner from his custody had escaped. The Government imposed the punishment of removal from ser