The termination of a government employee based on unproven charges linked to a pending criminal case is invalid; dependent charges lose validity if the principal charge is disproven.

ORDER :

The present petition has been submitted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) That the order dated 6.12.2018 Anneuxre P/1, order dated 25.10.2017 Annexure P/2 and order dated 31.03.2017 Annexure P/3 be quashed.

(ii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working as constable SAF No. 451 and at the relevant time he was working in 18th batalion SAF Shivpuri. He was placed under suspension on 18.5.2014 and thereafter he was charge-sheeted on 01.07.2014 Annexure P/4, relevant para of which is quoted herein below:-

3. Thereafter petitioner has filed reply to the charge-sheet. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in criminal case petitioner was granted bail in M.Cr.C. No. 12117/2014 by order dated 28.2.2015 the suspension was revoked, thereafter, enquiry officer and presenting officer has been appointed and enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry and conveyed the enquiry report dated 25.03.2015 Annexure P/6. Enquiry Officer has proved both the charges. Thereafter, respondent issued a notice dated 25.03.2015. A copy of enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner submitted reply to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority by order dated 31.03.2017 has not proved charge No. 1 and mentioned that charge No. 1 will be decided after decision taken in the criminal case. On the basis of charge No. 2 the petitioner's services have been terminated. Against that the petitioner has submitted appeal. That appeal has been decided by order dated 25.10.2017. Thereafter, a mercy petition was also rejected by order dated 29.12. 2018.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed mainly, on the ground that in the charge-sheet, the allegation was leveled against the petitioner that the petitioner in the Forest Guard Selection Return Examination, 2013 through Mediator got help of Bhanej Damad Dilip Tagore in his selection. The second charge against the petitioner was that STF registered crime No. 9/14 under Sections 4 19 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 В IPC read with Section 3 gh (1-2) 4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act 1937.

5. The counsel for petitioner has submitted that the main charge against the petitioner was that he got help through Mediator of his Bhanej Damad on the post of Forest Guard. However, the disciplinary authority has cancelled the charge No. 1 and the counsel for the petitioner further submitted that charge No. 2 is co- related/dependent upon charge No. 1 and once the charge no. 1 has not been proved, the petitioner cannot be punished by a major penalty of removal from service.

6. Per contra, learned Govt. had opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the impugned orders Annexures P/1 dated 6.12.2018, P/2 dated 25.10.2017 and P/3 dated 31.03.2017 do not suffer from any illegality. He further submitted that it is settled position that the Court is not an appellate authority and cannot sit in appeal over the disciplinary proceedings nor it can reapreciate the material on record and cannot interfere in the findings of enquiry proceedings. Scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary matters is very limited and also submitted that the Court can interfere in the matter only when the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the quantum of misconduct. He further submitted that petitioner remain suspended for 299 days, out of which he was under judicial custody for 123 days from 2.5.2014 to 1.9.2014 in Central Jail, Bhopal and after getting released from Central Jail Bhopal, from 2.9.2014 to 10.11.2014, he remained absent from duty and was absconded for 70 days. Even after joining the unit on 11.11.2014 and during the suspension, petitioner again remained abs