Pradeep Kumar Gubrele vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

This Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order

dated 22/03/2018 passed in Writ Petition No.6025/2016.

While posted as Constable Police Line, Gwalior, the Appellant was issued the charge sheet on 11/09/2013.

The charges levelled against him were:

^^1- fnukad 01-05-13 dks iqfyl dh oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku vius fj'rsnkj csVw 'kekZ dks iqfyl ds izfr mdlkus] iqfyl ls fookn dj ekgkSy fcxkMus]

efgykvksa ls cgl djkdj csVw 'kekZ dks iqfyl cy ds lkeus ls Hkxkus esa lg;ksx dj lafnX/k vkpj.k ,oa vuq'kklughurk iznf'kZr djukA

2- mijksDrkuqlkj d`R; dj flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;eksa ,oa iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk&64 dk mYya?ku djukA**

The charges had their genesis in the incident which took place on 30/04/2013 when on receiving the report from Sahara Hospital to Police Station

Janakganj as to one Nikhil alias Betu Sharma sustaining gun-shot injury, which was recorded on Rojnamcha Sanha No.2426, dated 30/04/2013, the

inquiry was set in motion. The preliminary inquiry conducted by City Superintendent, Gwalior, revealed that the injury to the boy was caused from the

gun belonging to the child's uncle. When the police party went to the place for recovery of said gun, the Appellant, a police constable, exhorted the

said Betu Sharma not to disclose the gun to the police who will seize the same. Being thus suggested, said Betu Sharma created the scene by tearing

his shirt.

The denial of charges, led the Disciplinary Authority hold regular departmental enquiry wherein after affording opportunity of hearing to the Appellant,

the enquiry report was furnished wherein the charges were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after issuing notice to the Appellant and taking

into consideration the reply, dismissed the Appellant from service vide order dated 22/02/2014. In an appeal, the order of dismissal was converted to

that of compulsory retirement by the Inspector General of Police by his order dated 18/07/2014. The order of compulsory retirement was affirmed by

the Director General of Police by his order dated 15/12/2014 passed in Merci Appeal. Challenge to said order in Writ Petition No.6025/2016 has been

negatived by impugned order.

Present appeal is filed questioning the legality of the order on the ground that the Authorities right through and learned Single Judge has glossed over

the vital defence taken by the Appellant that no offence having been registered against any of the person lend support to the contentions that the

appellant was falsely implicated. It is urged that it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to have proved the charges, beyond the reasonable

doubt.

Respondents, on their turn, support the impugned order. It is contended that the specific charges being framed and proved in the regular enquiry

wherein the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Competent Authority

does not warrant any indulgence.

Considered the rival submissions.

Fetters of judicial review in the matter of departmental enquiry are well settled.

In Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu:[(2008) 5 SCC 569], it is held:

“20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-

known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. [See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal [(2005) 2 SCC 638];

State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (12) SCC 561]; SBI vs. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (13) SCC 727]; State of Karnataka v. Ameeribi

[2007 (11) SCC 681]; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak [2008 (1) SCC 456] and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi [(2008) 2

SCC 310].

Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of

punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of

an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. [See

Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India [(1999) 1 SCC 259].â€​

In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others vs. P.C. Kakkar: [(2003) 4 SCC 364], it is held:

“11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was

illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral

standards. In view of what has been stated in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Coprn.: [(1948) 1 KB 223] the Court

would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the

administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.â€​

In view whereof and in absence of any cogent material on record to establish that the findings arrived by the Competent Authority are perverse or

that there is any procedural irregularity, we refrain from causing any indulgence.

Consequently, Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.