Hanuman Prasad Sharma vs State of MP

This appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, calling in question tenability of an order-dated 29.3.2007 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No. 23073/2003.

Facts in brief, necessary for deciding this appeal, goes to show that the appellant was appointed in the Police Department, as a Constable, in the year 1965. He was promoted as a Head Constable in the year 1975 after passing the requisite examination. It is stated that he had an unblemished service record and various awards were also conferred upon him vide Annexures A/4 and A/5. He was also considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, but for want of post in the year 1981, after passing the departmental examination, he could not be promoted.

Be it as it may be, the facts that have come on record goes to show that based on certain allegations leveled against him a charge-sheet was issued to him on 13.3.1981 and the three allegations leveled against him in the charge-sheet reads as under:

"Charge No:1 - Despite oral instructions given to him on 16.5.81 to join his duties at Bharkuteh, he did not report for duty there and thus committed grave misconduct.

Charge No:2- He left the Head Quarter during the period of rest without permission.

Charge No:3- He entered into correspondence with Inspector General of Police on 12.6.81 without obtaining permission from his immediate superior and thus committed an act of indiscipline."

A departmental inquiry was conducted and vide order-dated 23.1.82 he was removed from service. He challenged the removal by filing a Civil Suit bearing No. 480/83 before the Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal, but after constitution of the MP State Arbitration Tribunal the civil suit was transferred to the Tribunal under section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and was registered as T.A. No. 3104/1988. The Tribunal by a detailed judgment passed on 21.12.1990, came to the conclusion that certain defects were there in the departmental inquiry conducted and, therefore, remanded the matter back to the department for conducting fresh departmental inquiry.

Matter was kept pending, came back to the Administrative Tribunal on various considerations and finally a fresh order was passed by the competent authority again removing the petitioner from service. However, on an appeal being filed, the punishment was modified and instead of removing him from service the punishment of reducing him to the minimum of the time scale of pay in the category of Head Constable was imposed. The appellate order in this regard is Annexure A/2. Challenging these orders a fresh application was filed before the State Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 931/93 and after winding up of the Tribunal the case was transferred to this Court and was registered as WP No. 23073/03, and has been decided by the impugned order.

It is seen that when the writ petition was heard by a Bench of this Court, the petitioner did not challenge the departmental inquiry, but only called in question the propriety of the punishment imposed upon him.

It was stated that the punishment imposed is too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. The learned Court went into this question and found that the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could not interfere with the punishment, but granted certain relief in the matter of counting the intervening period of service and seniority for the purpose of granting retiral benefits.

Now, in this writ appeal, appellant again challenges the quantum of punishment imposed and Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior Advocate, referring to the allegations leveled in the charge- sheet as is reproduced hereinabove, argued that for such allegations the punishment of reducing the appellant to the minimum in the pay scale is not called for. That apart, learned Senior Advocate tried to indicate that appellant was even promoted as a Sub Inspector vide order-dated 1.6.2000. The writ Court has also interfered with the order of the department in refusing to count the past service of the appellant. To that extent, relief has been granted to the appellant.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant again referred to the allegations leveled in the charge-sheet and tried to emphasize that the punishment is too harsh and is not commensurate to the allegations leveled and, therefore, the punishment be interfered with. Learned Senior Advocate also pointed out that the promotion granted to the appellant vide order-dated 1.6.2000 has not been given to him because of the punishment and the departmental proceedings pending.

Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the appellant is an employee of a disciplined armed force and, therefore, if an employee of the disciplined armed force does not perform duty in accordance to the directions issued by the competent authority, the punishment imposed is proper and the same does not call for any interference. It is stated that once the writ Court has already granted certain relief to the appellant, no further indulgence be made.

We have considered the rival contentions and we are of the considered view that the appellant is a member of the disciplined force and it is for the competent authority to take a decision with regard to the punishment to be imposed. The writ court has rightly refused to interfere into the matter and left it to the discretion of the disciplinary authority. To that extent we see no reason to interfere into the matter.

However, if the appellant feels that the punishment is highly disproportionate, he may submit fresh mercy appeal to the Director General of Police and it would for the said authority to consider the same sympathetically and take action in the matter. Except for the aforesaid indulgence, we see no reason to interfere with the reasonable order passed by the learned writ Court.

As far as grant of promotion by virtue of the order dated 1.6.2000 is concerned, it is seen that the impugned action was taken against the appellant in the year 1992 and normally the promotion ordered in the year 2000 should not come in the way of the appellant.

As the promotion was ordered in the year 2000, it is not known as to why this order of promotion is not implemented and what is the reason for the same. This question was not canvassed either before the writ Court nor is there any material before us to go into such question.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, in case appellant has any grievance with regard to non-grant of promotion to him inspite of the order passed on 1.6.2000, he may agitate the same afresh before the competent authority. In the present appeal, we see no reason to go into this question

We accordingly dispose of this appeal with the limited liberty to the appellant to submit a mercy appeal to the Director General of Police, as directed hereinabove.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.