Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5724
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK JAIN, J
DURYODHAN BAGHADE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 25569 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Zamir Mohammad Shah
For the Respondents: Ms. Supriya Singh
Judicial review permits interference in disciplinary penalties when found shockingly disproportionate, particularly concerning minor misconduct without moral turpitude.
Headnote:(A) Judiciary Review - Judicial scrutiny concerning the disproportionality of penalties in administrative decisions, particularly relating to dismissal from services. The law dictates reassessment if penalties shock judicial conscience. Key cases cited include B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Employee Conduct - Summary of charges against an employee demonstrating minor misconduct which did not warrant dismissal. The conduct was correctable, and historical context of the case noted. (Paras 2-4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, dismissed due to ten charges, mostly minor issues relating to absence and slow work execution, was deemed unfairly penalized by dismissal, which was found disproportionate.
Findings of Court:
The court found the dismissal excessive given the nature of the misconduct; a lesser penalty was deemed appropriate for correction.
Issues: The court assessed the appropriateness of dismissal versus corrective disciplinary measures for minor misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial interference is warranted when penalties are shockingly disproportionate, especially where no integrity issues arise. The court sought to restore balance in penalties while acknowledging prolonged unemployment of the petitioner.
Result: Petition allowed with restoration of service.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of minor misconduct allegations. (Para 2 , 3) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 20 OF AUGUST, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 25569 of 2018 DURYODHAN BAGHADE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Zamir Mohammad Shah- Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER By way of this petition challenge is made to order Annexure P/1 dated
12.09.2018 passed in appeal whereby the original penalty order dated 28.03.2017 Annexure P/3 has been confirmed and the penalty of dismissal from services has been upheld by the appellate authority.
2. The petitioner was charged with 10 charges and the said charges were found proved in the departmental inquiry and pursuant to that he has been dismissed from Service. The 10 charges were as under:-
Charge No. 1 related to not updating the account.
Charge No. 2 related to not being available in headquarter.
Charge No.3 related to not executing various beneficial schemes.
Charge No. 4 related to absence in monthly meetings.
Charge No. 5 related to absence in a meeting dated 19.01.2016.
Charge No. 6 related to not taking steps for timely payment of wages of labourers. Charge No. 7 related to being negligent as a result of which theft being committed.
Charge No. 8 related to being absent in certain meetings.
Charge No. 9 related to not taking proper steps for execution of Indira Avas Yojana.
Charge No. 10 again related to absence without information in certain meetings.
3. The aforesaid charges duly indicate that except charge number seven which relates to some theft, none of the charges are serious in nature and do not Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR exhibit any major misconduct in as much as they simply indicate either absence from duties on some dates or the execution of work being slow in various beneficial schemes. Even so far as charge No. 7 relating to theft is concerned, as per the finding of Inquiry Officer the finding is that a theft of LCD took place and the petitioner did not take appropriate steps after theft was committed. Therefore this charge is also not of theft of property against the petitioner but of not taking consequential steps which may amount to the petitioner not being diligent and punctual.
4. In the opinion of this Court the allegations of not being punctual in duties and allegations of being absent in certain meetings are all such lapses for which an employee could be corrected and disciplined by imposing any other penalty. None of these charges show that the conduct of the petitioner was such that it amounted to moral turpitude or such that it was incorrigible and it could not be corrected by taking such other disciplinary action as was permissible under the law.
5. The authority seems to be under impression that in every case of misconduct by a Panchayat Secretary the only punishment that can be awarded is dismissal from services.
6. It is settled in law that the Court in exercise of judicial review can interfere in quantum of penalty if the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the Court. In the present case also the charges against the petitioner which do not relate to any major misconduct, the penalty is certainly shockingly disproportionate and grossly disproportionate to the allegations found proved against the petitioner. None of the charges relate to any moral turpitude or any conduct which could not be corrected. No aspersions have been cast on integrity of the petitioner in any of the charges.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
7. So far is interference in the quantum of penalty is concerned, it has been held by the Supreme Court that interference in quantum of penalty can be made only if the penalty is so disproportionate that it shocks the judicial conscience of the Court, and normally in cases of corruption, lack of integrity or cases of moral turpitude, no interference should be mad
