Sharad Kumar Dixit vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition is filed against the punishment order Annexure P-1 whereby the petitioner is removed from service. Petitioner''s appeal is also rejected by the appellate authority. Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the punishment is extremely disproportionate and needs to be interfered by this Court. He relied on the judgment of this Court delivered in W.P. No. 3814/2003 (S.S. Shukla v. State of M.P. and others) and also the order passed in W.Ps. No. 496/2004 (Ram Prakash Sharma v. State of M.P. & Others). The singular contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter may be remanded back to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Government circular issued on the question of quantum of punishment. No other points regarding the decision making process or any other flaw in the enquiry is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner is opposed by Mrs. Pachori, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet are as under:--

The charges were found proved by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority considered the past conduct of the petitioner in consonance with Regulation 225 of the Police Regulations and opined that the petitioner was inflicted with 15 minor and one major punishment earlier and despite that he has not improved his conduct. On eleven occasions leave without pay was granted to the petitioner but there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner.

The charge No. 2 shows that the petitioner remained absent on different spells unauthorizedly. It is pertinent to mention here that the procedural part of the enquiry and finding of enquiry officer is not called in question. Accordingly, it needs to be seen whether matter can be remanded back for considering the question of quantum of punishment.

This is settled in law that this Court is not obliged to sit as an appellate authority to consider the said question. Interference on quantum of punishment can be made when punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In view of the established charges, I am unable to hold that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate.

So far the judgment of S.S. Shukla (supra) is concerned, from the order it is not clear what were the allegations against the said person. Accordingly, no parity can be claimed from S.S. Shukla (supra). For different cases of misconduct, different punishments can be imposed. No parity can be claimed from another person unless wholesome parity is established. Similarly, the order passed in Ram Prakash Sharma (supra) does not lay down any law. It is merely based on S.S. Shukla''s case.

In the considered opinion of this Court, as a matter of routine, the matter cannot be remanded back to the respondents for considering the question of quantum of punishment. This can be done only when this Court comes to the conclusion that punishment is harsh/excessive and then only interference can be made. This Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment is not harsh or excessive. Therefore, there is no question of directing the respondents to reconsider the question of quantum of punishment. The said judgments, for the reasons stated above, are of no assistance to the petitioner. The petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No cost.