Shravan Kumar Balone vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Shravan Kumar Balone v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Others
Writ Petition No. 80 of 2019 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 5.10.2023

Advocates:
K. S. Wadhwa for petitioner;
Ved Prakash Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

Headnote:
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of judicial review -- departmental enquiry -- scope is limited -- Court is basically concerned with decision-making process -- if principles of natural justice are violated while conducting enquiry which has caused prejudice and enquiry officer has based its reasons on some evidence, Court cannot reappreciate evidence to take different view – charges are required to be proved by applying principle of preponderance of probability -- not that charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt -- if some evidence connects delinquent employee with charges, same sufficient to hold employee guilty. (1999) 1 SCC 759, (1977) 2 SCC 491, (1999) 3 SCC 679, (2005) 7 SCC 764, (2006) 10 SCC 572, (2021) 12 SCC 569 and (2022) SCC Online SC 1140 followed.
[Para 14
(2) Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (M. P.) -- R. 23 (c) -- M. P. Police Regulations -- Regs. 64 (2) and 64 (3) -- state of intoxication -- petitioner found under influence of liquor in liquor shop -- petitioner’s conduct (if proved) certainly constitutes misconduct even if it was committed after duty hours -- R. 23 (c) of Conduct Rules covers conduct of police personnel even beyond his duty hours. 2013 (2) JLJ 15 = (2013) SCC Online MP 1058 relied on. [Paras 16 & 18
(3) Departmental Enquiry -- departmental prosecution witnesses deposed against petitioner in very categorical manner -- no enmity between petitioner and employees/officers of his own department therefore their statements cannot be discarded -- not case of no evidence -- principle of preponderance of probability satisfied. [Para 17
(4) Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (M. P.) -- R. 23 (c) -- state of intoxication -- petitioner’s blood sample not taken -- breath analyser not used -- petitioner’s submission that he was taking medicine containing alcohol -- deposition of doctor that petitioner was under influence of liquor and was not able to walk properly -- not using breath analyser or not taking blood sample will not cause any dent to story of prosecution because doctor had no enmity with petitioner -- his statement will not vanish in thin air merely because aforesaid tests were not conducted -- his statement fulfils requirement of principle of preponderance of probability -- cannot be said that findings of enquiry officer are based on no evidence or are perverse in nature -- punishment of compulsory retirement not extremely disproportionate -- police force is disciplined force -- even when police officer is not on duty, he is expected to maintain discipline -- petition dismissed. Government of T.N. (1997) 2 SCC 708, (1971) 2 SCC 325 and (2011) 9 SCC 94 followed. [Paras 19 to 21
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr & foHkkxh; tk¡p & O;kfIr lhfer gS & U;k;ky; dk ljksdkj ewyr% fofu'p;u çfØ;k ls gksrk gS & ;fn tk¡p djrs le; uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vfrØe.k gqvk gS ftlls çfrdwy çHkko iM+k gS rFkk tk¡p vf/kdkjh us viuh rdZ.kk fdlh lk{; ij vk/kkfjr dh gS- rks U;k;ky; fHkUu –f"Vdks.k viukus ds fy, lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu ugha dj ldrk & vkjksi vf/klaHkkO;rk dh çcyrk dk fl)kar ykxw dj lkfcr fd, tkuk visf{kr & ,slk ugha fd vkjksi ;qfä;qä lansg ds ijs gh lkfcr fd, tkuk pkfg, & ;fn dksbZ lk{; vipkjh deZpkjh dks vkjksiksa ls tksM+rk gS] rks og deZpkjh dks nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIrA ¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 759] ¼1977½ 2 ,l lh lh 491] ¼1999½ 3 ,l lh lh 679] ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 764] ¼2006½ 10 ,l lh lh 572- ¼2021½ 12 ,l lh lh 569 rFkk ¼2022½ ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,l lh 1140 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1965 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fuŒ 23 ¼x½ & ¼eŒÁŒ½ iqfyl fofu;e & fofuŒ 64¼2½ rFkk 64¼3½ & u'ks dh gkyr & ;kph efnjk dh nqdku esa e| ds çHkko esa ik;k x;k & ;kph ds vkpj.k ls ¼lkfcr gks rks½ fuf'pr gh vopkj xfBr gksrk gS- Hkys gh og drZO;dky ds mijkar fd;k x;k gks & vkpj.k fu;eksa dk fuŒ 23 ¼x½ iqfyl dfeZ;ksa ds drZO;dky ds mijkar Hkh muds vkpj.k dks vkPNkfnr djrk gSA 2013 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 15 % ¼2013½ ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,e ih 1058 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 18½
¼3½ foHkkxh; tk¡p & foHkkxh; vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa us vR;f/kd lqLi"Vrk ls ;kph ds fo:) vfHklk{; fn;k & ;kph vkSj mlds gh foHkkx ds deZpkfj;ksa vfèkdkfj;ksa ds e/; dksbZ 'k=qrk ugha blfy, muds dFku R;ä ugha fd, tk ldrs & dksbZ lk{; ugha gksus dk ekeyk ugha & vf/klaHkkO;rk dh çcyrk ds fl)kar dh iwfrZ gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1965 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fuŒ 23 ¼x½ & u'ks dh gkyr & ;kph ds jä dk uewuk ugha fy;k x;k & 'okl fo'ys"kd dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k & ;kph dk fuosnu fd og vkS"kf/k ys jgk Fkk ftlesa e|lkj gksrk gS & fpfdRld dk vfHklk{; fd ;kph e| ds çHkko esa Fkk rFkk Bhd ls py ugha ik jgk Fkk & 'okl fo'ys"kd dk mi;ksx ugha djus vFkok jä dk uewuk ugha ysus ls vfHk;kstui{k dh dgkuh dks dksbZ vk?kkr ugha igq¡prk D;ksafd fpfdRld dh ;kph ls dksbZ 'k=qrk ugha Fkh & mldk dFku ek= blfy, gok esa yqIr ugha gks tk,xk fd mi;qZä ijh{k.k ugha fd, x, & mlds dFku ls vf/klaHkkO;rk dh çcyrk ds fl)kar dh vis{kk dh iwfrZ gksrh gS & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd t‚ap vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ fdlh lk{; ij vk/kkfjr ugha vFkok foi;ZLr ç—fr ds gSa & vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk dk naM vR;f/kd vuuqikfrd ugha & iqfyl cy vuq'kkflr cy gksrk gS & iqfyl vf/kdkjh dk;Z ij ugha gks rc Hkh mlls çR;kf'kr fd og vuq'kklu dk;e j[ks & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼1997½ 2 ,l lh lh 708] ¼1971½ 2 ,l lh lh 325 rFkk ¼2011½ 9 ,l lh lh 94 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19 ls 21½

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of punishment of compulsorily retirement dated 22/26.5.2018 (Annexure-P/6) which was affirmed by appellate authority vide order dated 9.10.2018 (Annexure-P/8).

3. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner while working as Sub Inspector received the charge sheet dated 28.6.2017 wherein it was alleged that on 6.4.2017, the petitioner was on duty and was found to be under the influence of liquor in a liquor shop. 6.4.2017 was the day of ‘Ramnavmi’ and aforesaid conduct of petitioner has tarnished the image of the department. The petitioner has allegedly committed misconduct as per rule 23(d) of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (Conduct Rules) and Regulations 64(2) and (3) of M.P. Police Regulations (Regulations). The second charge against the petitioner was relating to the past record. It is alleged that petitioner has received 69 minor and 2 major punishments but did not improve his conduct.

4. The petitioner filed his reply on 24.1.2018, denied the charges and stated that on 6.4.2017 he was not on duty. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and decided to conduct the enquiry. Resultantly, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of 18 prosecution witnesses and prepared his report which was served on the petitioner alongwith a show cause notice dated 2.2.2018 (Annexure-P/4) issued by Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, District-Burhanpur.

5. In turn, petitioner filed his reply to the I.O’s report. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the defence of the petitioner and imposed the punishment of compulsorily retirement vide order dated 22/26.5.2018. The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed on 9.10.2018 (Annexure P/8).

6. Criticizing the disciplinary proceedings and punishment, Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet (Annexure P/3) and made it clear that he was not on duty. Interestingly, the enquiry officer in his report gave finding that petitioner was not on the law and order duty on 6.4.2017 (Ramnavmi). Since, petitioner was not on duty, Rule 23(d) of the Conduct Rules has no application.

7. By taking this Court to the statement of Dr. Devendra Puniwala (P.W.8), it is urged that in his cross-examination Dr. Devendra Puniwala (P.W.8) admitted that he has not conducted any test by using the breath analyzer nor taken any blood sample of petitioner. In absence thereof, it cannot be said with certainty that petitioner was under the influence of liquor. The petitioner has bulky body and was taking certain medicines which contained some amount of alcohol. Dr. Puniwala (P.W.8) admitted that if such medicines are consumed, the smell of alcohol may come from the mouth of the person consumed it.

8. Apart from this, Shri Wadhwa has taken pains by placing reliance on the statements of Pramila Bai (P.W.9), Lata Bai (P.W.10), Kavita Bai (P.W.11), Sabeena (P.W.12), Minakshi (P.W.13), Mehrunisa (P.W.14), Fauzia (P.W.15), Smt. Sarita (P.W.16), Nirmala (P.W.17) and Banobi (P.W.18) and urged that these witnesses did not identify the petitioner and not stated anything about the overt act of the petitioner. All the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, in one voice stated that the liquor shop was closed. In this backdrop, the finding of enquiry officer is erroneous and perverse and petitioner could not have been held guilty for committing the misconduct.

9. The disciplinary authority has only taken into account the examination-in-chief part of above prosecution witnesses and has not taken pains to consider the cross-examination part of their depositions. The disciplinary authority further erred in taking into account the previous punishments but ignored the previous rewards. The punishment imposed is totally unwar