Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ag. CJ and Vinay Saraf, J.
Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Others
Writ Petition No. 8623 of 2016 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 25.7.2024
(1) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- Rr. 14 and 10 (viii) -- removal from service -- petitioner holding post of Additional District & Sessions Judge -- granted bail to some applicants without considering provisions of S. 59-A of M. P. Excise Act and in other cases, dismissed bail applications after applying said provision -- even though there may not be direct evidence to show corrupt or improper motive but on bare perusal of bail orders, it can be seen that petitioner acted in manner which cannot be approved -- inference of improper motive and extraneous consideration properly drawn against petitioner -- reasonable finding arrived at by inquiring authority -- based on material available on record can neither be interfered with by this Court, nor can it be termed as perverse or unreasonable to such extent that interference can be made by this Court -- no violation of principles of natural justice or error found in procedure followed in enquiry -- in absence of any procedural illegality, irregularity in conduct of departmental enquiry, no interference warranted. (1993) 4 SCC 288 and (2011) 4 SCC 584 followed. 2006 (III) MPWN SN 24 and 2000 (1) MPJR 272, (2019) 10 SCC 640, 2000 (2) MPLJ 79, ILR 2011 (MP) 1695, Writ Petition No. 13437 of 2016, 2022 (2) MPLJ 296 and 2021 (2) JLJ 118 referred to. [Paras 5.1 to 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.8 & 5.9]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of judicial review -- High Court, in exercise of powers under Art. 226, not supposed to sit as Court of Appeal to re-appreciate or re-weigh entire evidence -- subject-matter of judicial review is only limited to decision-making process -- if process runs contrary to principles of natural justice and such violation prejudices delinquent, interference can be made -- otherwise not -- if conclusion or finding is such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, High Court may interfere with conclusion or finding, or mould the relief so as to make it appropriate in facts of case -- otherwise not. [Para 5.4]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of judicial review -- departmental enquiry -- while exercising powers of judicial review, High Court should not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty in absence of shockingly disproportionate quantum of punishment. [Para 5.6]
(4) Enquiry -- strict rules of evidence not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings -- only requirement of law is that allegations against delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which reasonable person may arrive at finding recorded by enquiry officer. [Para 5.7]
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of judicial review
-- departmental enquiry -- Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review should not interfere with findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings except in case of mala fide or perversity -- jurisdiction of Court in judicial review is limited. [Para 5.7
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-ç-½ & fu- 14 rFkk 10 ¼7½ & lsok ls gVkuk & ;kph vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;kèkh'k ds in ij & dqN vkosndksa dh tekur e-ç- vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 59&d ds mica/kksa ij fopkj fd, fcuk eatwj dh rFkk vU; çdj.kksa esa mä mica/k ykxw djus ds mijkar tekur vkosnu ukeatwj fd, & Hkys gh Hkz"V ;k vuqfpr gsrq n'kkZus ds fy, dksbZ çR;{k lk{; ugha] ijarq tekur vkns'kksa ds ifj'khyu ek= ls ns[kk tk ldrk gS fd ;kph us ,slh jhfr esa dk;Z fd;k ftldk vuqeksnu ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;kph ds fo:) vuqfpr gsrq vkSj ckg~; ckrksa ij fopkj dk vuqeku Bhd gh fd;k x;k & tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkys[kxr lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij fudkys x, ;qfä;qä fu"d"kZ esa u rks bl U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS] u mls bl lhek rd foi;ZLr ;k v;qfä;qä gh dgk tk ldrk gS fd bl U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tk lds & tk¡p esa vuqlfjr çfØ;k esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk dksbZ vfrØe.k ;k xyrh ugha ikbZ xbZ -- foHkkxh; tk¡p ds lapkyu esa fdlh çfØ;kRed voS/krk] vfu;ferrk ds vHkko esa gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA ¼1993½ 4 ,llhlh 288 rFkk ¼2011½ 4 ,llhlh 584 vuqlfjrA 2006 ¼3½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l ,l,u 24 rFkk 2000 ¼1½ ,eihtsvkj 272] ¼2019½ 10 ,llhlh 640] 2000 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 79] vkb,yvkj 2011 ¼,eih½ 1695] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 13437 lu~ 2016] 2022 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 296 rFkk 2021 ¼2½ ts,yts 118 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 5-1 rs 5-3] 5-5] 5-6] 5-8 ,oa 5-9½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr & vuq- 226 ds v/khu 'kfä ç;qä djrs le; mPp U;k;ky; dks laiw.kZ lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu ;k iqufoZpkj djus ds fy, vihy U;k;ky; dh Hk‚afr dk;Z ugha djuk gksrk & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh fo"k;&oLrq fofu'p;u çfØ;k rd gh lhfer gksrh gS & ;fn çfØ;k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds fo:) tkrh gS rFkk ,sls vfrØe.k ls vipkjh ij çfrdwy çHkko iM+rk gS rks gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS & vU;Fkk ugha & ;fn Qfyr ;k fu"d"kZ ,slk gS tks dksbZ ;qfä;qä O;fä dHkh ugha fudkyrk rks mPp U;k;ky; Qfyr ;k fu"d"kZ esa gLr{ksi dj ldrk gS] vFkok çdj.k ds rF;ksa esa leqfpr cukus ds fy, vuqrks"k dks
¼4½ t‚ap & foHkkxh; tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh dks lk{; ds vfrfu;efu"B fu;e ykxw ugha gksrs & fof/k dh ,dek= vis{kk ;g gS fd vipkjh vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vfHkdFku ,sls lk{; ls LFkkfir fd, tk,¡ ftl ij dk;Z djrs gq, ;qfä;qä O;fä mlh fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ps tks t‚ap vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkfy[kr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 5-7½
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr & foHkkxh; t‚ap & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh vf/kdkfjrk ç;qä djrs le; U;k;ky; dks] vln~Hkko ;k foi;ZLrrk dh n'kk ds flok;] foHkkxh; tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh esa fudkys x, rF;kRed fu"d"kZ esa gLr{ksi ugha djuk pkfg, & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu esa U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk lhfer gSA ¼iSjk 5-7½
ORDER
Saraf, J -- 1. Petitioner who was working on the post of Additional District Judge has preferred the present writ petition assailing the order of punishment dated 2.9.2014, whereby the Petitioner was removed from the service by High Court of M.P., Jabalpur after conducting the departmental enquiry. The Petitioner has also assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the State of M.P. in appeal on 17.3.2016 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
Brief facts suffice for disposal of the present petition are as under :
2.1 Petitioner/delinquent was appointed as Civil Judge, Class II on 31.10.1987 and was posted at Khandwa.
2.2 Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate and later on promoted after due selection as member of M.P. Higher Judicial Service at Entry Level in the month of May, 2011 and was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khargon.
2.3 On 12.8.2011, one Jaipal Mehta made a complaint against the Petitioner alleging that Petitioner has indulged in corruption activities with the support of Stenographer, Anil Joshi particularly in the matters of deciding bail applications arising out of the offences registered under section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
2.4 Considering the nature of allegations, a show cause notice was served to the Petitioner on 13.05.2013 under sub rule (4) of Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Rules 1966’) intimating the Petitioner that the High Court has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Along with the show cause notice, article of charges, statements of imputations of misconduct in support of article of charges, list of documents and list of witnesses were enclosed.
2.5 Petitioner refuted the allegations and submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 29.5.2013, wherein he denied the allegations of corruption and submitted clarification. However, being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the Petitioner on 20.6.2013, Shri Abhinand Kumar Jain, District & Sessions Judge, Khandwa was appointed as inquiring authority by exercising the powers conferred under Clause (9) of sub rule (5) of Rule 14 of Rules, 1966 and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandleshwar was appointed as Presenting Officer by the disciplinary authority to present the case in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings.
2.6 During enquiry the statement of the witness No.1, Gendalal Chouhan was recorded by the department and the opportunity was granted to the delinquent to cross examine him. Delinquent has also examined one witness in defence namely; Shri K.P. Tripathi and opportunity was granted to the Presenting Officer to cross examine the defence witness. After granting opportunity of hearing and securing written submission from the delinquent, the inquiring authority prepared enquiry report on 31.12.2013 and forwarded the same to the Principal Registrar (Inspection and Vigilance), High Court of M.P., Jabalpur wherein the enquiry officer found proved the charge No.1 and exonerated from charge No.2.
2.7. On 14.3.2014, Administrative Committee (HJS) High Court considered the findings recorded by the inquiring authority and resolved to issue show cause notice to the delinquent employee as to why he should not be punished for the charges proved against him.
2.8 On 21.3.2014, a show cause notice was issued to the delinquent along with the copy of enquiry report and he was called upon to show cause as to why enquiry report be not accepted and he should not be punished as the charges had been proved against him. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice.
2.9 Reply submitted by the delinquent was considered by the Administrative Committee (HJS) High Court in its meeting dated 24.6.2014 and the Committee recommended for infliction of penalty of removal from the service upon the Petitioner and directed to place the matter before Full Court for
Judicial officers cannot be penalized merely for error in judgment; substantial evidence of misconduct is necessary for disciplinary action, reinforcing the duty to protect judicial independence.
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.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions emphasizes fairness of the inquiry and proportionality of punishment, allowing modification from removal to compulsory retirement when circumstances warrant.
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
The court does not act as a Court of appeal in departmental proceedings and considers the conduct of the appellant before and after the punishment order.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to evaluating the inquiry process's fairness, with the onus generally on the authority to establish charges against the employee.
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline and the requirement to prove prejudice in cases of non-serving of enquiry report, affirming the authority's discretion in disciplinary pr....
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
