Bhopal, May 11: The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a Writ Petition assailing the order of punishment whereby the Petitioner was removed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority after conducting the Departmental Enquiry.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, Madhya Pradesh High Court, while quashing the dismissal order of a driver who arrived late to his VIP duty of attending High Court Judge, called it 'shocking' and 'disproportionate'.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition assailing the order of punishment whereby the Petitioner was removed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority after conducting the Departmental Enquiry.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, " looking to the charge of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal appears to be disproportionate.
The allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to reach at VIP Guest House on time and therefore, the Judge of Allahabad High Court could not board the train as scheduled. In our considered opinion allegation is not sufficient for dismissal of the delinquent from the service."
The Petitioner, who was working on the post of Peon (Class IV) in the office of District and Sessions Judge, District Court, Bhopal assailed the order of punishment whereby her was removed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority after conducting the Departmental Enquiry.
He was placed under suspension and charge sheet was served to him in respect of certain misconduct allegedly committed by him.
As per the charge sheet, the Petitioner was discharging the duty of Driver and was posted in VIP duty to attend Justice Shri S.K. Singh of Allahabad High Court during his visit at Bhopal and duty was assigned to the Petitioner to take Justice Shri S.K. Singh from VIP Guest House Bhopal to Railway Station in the night to board the train for Allahabad.
The Petitioner did not reach VIP Guest House along with car at the designated time and later on reached at 2.15 AM and by the time they reached Railway Station, the train for Allahabad had already departed.
Justice S.K. Singh made a written complaint to the Assistant Protocol Officer wherein it was stated that the Petitioner, besides being late, was in a drunken state.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he was not sent for medical examination and no witness was examined during the inquiry to prove the allegation that the Petitioner was in a drunken state.
He further submitted that only on the basis of written complaint of High Court Judge of Allahabad, this allegation cannot be accepted.
He further submitted that so far as reaching to VIP Guest House belatedly, the Petitioner had offered his explanation that between his residence and the place where the vehicle was parked, the tyre of his bicycle was punctured and therefore, he could not reach on time.
It was his contention that the department failed to prove the allegation against the petitioner and petitioner had already examined defence witness to explain the delay, but the same was not considered either by the Investigating Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority.
So far as the findings of Inquiry Officer are concerned, the same has been recorded on the basis of material available on record and inadequacy of evidence cannot be subject matter of judicial review and the High Court can interfere with the order of punishment only in case of violation of the provisions of rules or principles of natural justice are proved.
This court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as appellate authority.
This court can interfere only if statutory rules or regulations are found to be violated. When the law permits the competent authority to take action against the delinquent person for his misconduct, no interference in the finding is called for," the Court observed.
. However, it was of the view that, looking to the charge of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal appeared to be disproportionate. The allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to reach at VIP Guest House on time and therefore, the Judge of Allahabad High Court could not board the train as scheduled. In our considered opinion allegation is not sufficient for dismissal of the delinquent from the service.
The punishment of removal from the service is in outrages defines of logic and is shocking and if the punishment imposes by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscious of the Court, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and to impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof," the Court observed.
The Court, accordingly, set aside the quantum of punishment and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider.
Cause Title: Vijay Singh Bhadauriya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2025:MPHC-JBP:21250)
|