Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Nandita Dubey, J.
Pawan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition (Service) No. 195 of 2005 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 10.1.2023
(1) Departmental Enquiry -- is quasi-judicial proceeding -- principles of natural justice required to be observed strictly -- enquiry required to be conducted fairly and reasonably -- enquiry report must contain reason for reaching conclusion that charge framed against delinquent stood proved. [Para 8
(2) Natural Justice -- departmental enquiry -- government employee cannot be punished for his acts or omissions unless said acts or omissions are subject to specific charge and are enquired into in accordance with law -- if previous record is considered in inflicting punishment of removal from service, facts that form basis of that punishment should be disclosed in show cause notice to give opportunity of hearing to government employee to explain earlier conduct or to show that he has not been guilty of such misconduct as to merit extreme punishment of removal, and lessor punishment ought to be sufficient. 1964 SCR (4) 540, (2015) 8 SCC 272 and (2010) 10 SCC 539 followed. ILR 1954 Nag. 90 referred to. [Para 10
(3) Departmental Enquiry -- show cause notice does not mention proposed punishment -- nor does it mention that SP intended to take previous punishment/past record into consideration in proposing to remove him from service -- if authority intended to rely upon past record of petitioner for imposing punishment, it should have been made a specific charge in first stage of enquiry -- it cannot be relied upon after enquiry is closed and report is submitted to authority entitled to impose punishment -- petitioner/delinquent employee should be given reasonable opportunity to know fact and meet the same. [Para 14
(4) Civil Services -- removal from service -- while imposing punishment, disciplinary authority was guided by past record of petitioner, which was not part of charge sheet, nor put to notice of petitioner -- petitioner charged with remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly and assaulting complainant in public -- complainant sustained simple injuries -- not such grave misconduct which merits harsh punishment of removal from service -- punishment totally disproportionate to misconduct alleged -- respondents directed to reinstate petitioner -- 50% back wages payable from date of removal from service till date of reinstatement. [Paras 16 & 17
¼1½ foHkkxh; tk¡p && U;kf;ddYi dk;Zokgh gksrh gS && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk ikyu vfrfu;efu"Brk ls fd;k tkuk vko';d && tk¡p fu"i{krk ls vkSj ;qfDr;qDrrk ls dh tkuk visf{kr && tk¡p izfrosnu esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus dk dkj.k varfoZ"V gksuk gh pkfg, fd vipkjh ds fo#) fojfpr vkjksi lkfcr gks x;k gSA ¼iSjk 8
¼2½ uSlfxZd U;k; && foHkkxh; tk¡p && ljdkjh deZpkjh dks mlds ÑR;ksa vFkok yksiksa ds fy, rc rd nafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrk tc rd fd mDr ÑR;ksa vFkok yksiksa ds fofufnZ"V vkjksi ugha yxk, gksa rFkk mudh tk¡p fof/k ds vuqlkj dh tkuk vko';d gS && lsok ls gVk, tkus vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, ;fn fiNys vkpj.k ij fopkj fd;k tkrk gS rks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk esa og rF; izdV fd, tkuk pkfg, tks ml naM dk vk/kkj gSa] rkfd ljdkjh deZpkjh dks fiNys vkpj.k dk Li"Vhdj.k nsus vFkok ;g n'kkZus ds fy, lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tk lds fd og ,sls vopkj dk nks"kh ugha jgk gS tks gVk, tkus ds pje naM ds ;ksX; gks rFkk y?kqrj naM i;kZIr gksuk pkfg,A 1964 ,l lh vkj ¼4½ 540] ¼2015½8 ,l lh lh 272 rFkk ¼2010½10 ,l lh lh 539 vuqlfjrA vkb ,y vkj 1954 ukx- 90 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10
¼3½ foHkkxh; tk¡p && dkj.k crkvks lwpuk esa izLrkfor naM mfYyf[kr ugha && u gh ;g mYys[k fd mls lsok ls gVkus dks izLrko esa iqfyl v/kh{kd iwoZrj naM@fiNys vkpj.k ij fopkj djuk pkgrk gS && naM vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, izkf/kdkjh ;kph ds fiNys vkpj.k dk voyac ysuk pkgrk Fkk rks mls tk¡p ds izFke izØe ij fofufnZ"V vkjksi cuk;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk && tk¡p lekIr gks tkus vkSj naM vf/kjksfir djus ds gdnkj izkf/kdkjh dks izfrosnu is'k dj fn, tkus ds i'pkr~ mldk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrk && ;kph@vipkjh deZpkjh dks rF; tkuus dk vkSj mldk mÙkj nsus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj fn;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 14
¼4½ flfoy lsok && lsok ls gVkuk &&naM vf/kjksfir djrs le; vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh ;kph ds fiNys vkpj.k ls izsfjr Fkk] tks u rks vkjksii= dk Hkkx Fkk] u ml ij ;kph dk /;ku gh vkÑ"V fd;k x;k && ;kph ij drZO; ls vizkf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus rFkk f'kdk;rdrkZ ij [kqys vke geyk djus dk vkjksi && f'kdk;rdrkZ dks lknk {kfr;k¡ && ,slk xaHkhj vopkj ugha tks lsok ls gVk, tkus ds dM+s naM ds ;ksX; gks && naM vfHkdfFkr vopkj ls iw.kZr% vuuqikfrd && ;kph dks lsok esa iqu%LFkkfir djus dk izR;FkhZx.k dks funs'k && lsok ls gVk, tkus ds fnukad ls iqu%LFkkiu ds fnukad rd 50 izfr'kr fiNyh etnwjh lans;A ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17
ORDER
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 30.09.2003, whereby the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect as also the order dated 5.2.2004, rejecting his appeal and the order dated 9.7.2004, whereby his mercy appeal was also dismissed.
2. Petitioner was posted as constable at the office of S.P. Katni at the relevant time. A complaint was filed against him by one Harish Chandra Rajak on 9.4.2002 that he was assaulted by present petitioner at the instance of Subhadra Bai resulting in grievous injuries. MLC of complainant was conducted, which showed four simple injuries on his body.
3. On the basis of this complaint, the S.P. directed the SDOP to conduct preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was instituted against him. The Superintendent of Police after framing a charge against him, appointed the Addl. S.P. as Enquiry Officer, who after making the necessary enquiry in accordance with the law, submitted his report alongwith record to the Superintendent of Police. After considering the report, the Superintendent of Police issued a notice dated 28.7.2003 (served on 30.7.2003), calling upon the petitioner to submit his objection against the enquiry report within seven days, else it will be considered that he has nothing to say and final decision will be taken.
4. Since no reply to the said notice was filed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, S.P. Katni, after considering the enquiry report, concurred with the finding of enquiry officer and holding the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct imposed major penalty of removal from service on him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3, Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Range, however, the said appeal met with the same fate. The mercy appeal preferred thereafter by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence, this petition.
5. These orders are assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as he was not afforded opportunity to defend himself during the departmental enquiry proceedings. It is further argued that the findings are based on no evidence and the order of removal was passed without application of mind. It is stated that complainant and his wife later on submitted an affidavit before the enquiry officer, stating that the petitioner has not committed any offence, but the same was not considered. Lastly, it was also argued that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
6. Per contra, the stand of respondent is that reply to the charge sheet filed by the petitioner on 10.5.2003, was not found satisfactory. The departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also to produce the witnesses in defence, but he elected not to examine them, nor produce any witness in his defence. The enquiry officer concluded the enqiry and submitted his report, wherein he found the charge of misconduct as proved, to the Superintendent of Police. It is pointed out that copy of this enquiry report was sent to petitioner to submit his objections. Petitioner, however did not submit any objection despite being afforded an opportunity.
7. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that only for determining the quantum of punishment, the S.P. has examined the previous record of the delinquent/petitioner and after giving careful consideration to the fact that petitioner in 17 years of his career, has been subjected to 28 minor and 2 major punishments as against 36 rewards, most of the which were with regard to dereliction of duty, unauthorised absence, drinking alcohol on duty and misbehaviour with the superiors, decided to impose major punishment of removal from service. It is stated that despite being given a number of opportunities, he failed to learn a lesson and indulged in similar misconducts, which
The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the rules of natural justice, evidence-based findings of misconduct, and the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence, such as blood or urine tests, to prove intoxication. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of issuin....
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that arbitrary termination without due process is unenforceable.
The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct....
Departure from regular disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14(ii) RS(D&A) Rules requires specific recorded reasons for impracticability; vague satisfaction invalidates removal order, especially with crim....
Disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, considering the individual's service history and circumstances surrounding the case.
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
