Bombay High Court
Baliram Pandusingh Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-3539-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3539 OF 2015
Baliram Pandusingh Rathod,
Aged about : 55 years,
Occupation - Service as P.S.I.
Police Control Room,
In the office of Commissioner of Police,
Amravati, R/o Behind Bhakti Dham
Mandir, Sainagar, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director General of Police,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Amravati City, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V. A. Kothale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
21/06/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order
of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 30/03/2015
dismissing an original application filed by the petitioner and upholding
2 J-WP-3539-15.odt
the order dated 27/05/2011 by which the punishment of withholding of
one increment for a year was imposed.
The petitioner was working in the office of the
Commissioner of Police, Amravati as a police constable in 1994. He was
promoted as a head constable and in the year 2010 he was promoted as
a police sub-inspector. On 15/10/2010, he was served with a show
cause notice alleging therein that while conducting a raid on the minors
that were playing cards / gambling, the petitioner did not take the
panch witnesses. It was alleged in the show cause notice that it was
necessary for the petitioner to have conducted the raid along with the
panch witnesses and also ought to have made an entry about the
incident in the police diary. The petitioner was asked to show cause as
to why he had brought the minors to the police station if they were
playing rummy only for entertainment. The petitioner submitted the
explanation to the show cause notice. An enquiry was conducted in the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and a part of the explanation
of the petitioner was accepted. It was held that the minors were not
gambling, as no money was found with them and it was found that they
were playing rummy only for entertainment during the jagaran. It was
further found that since the raid was conducted in the night hours, the
panch witnesses were not available and the petitioner could not have
been blamed for not taking the panch witnesses to the place where the
raid was conducted. It was held in the enquiry that no other allegations
against the petitioner could be proved, except the allegation that the
petitioner had not made an entry about the incident in the police diary.
After the said charge was proved, the disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of withholding of one increment on the petitioner. The
petitioner challenged the said order before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original application
by the impugned order.
3 J-WP-3539-15.odt
Shri V. A. Kothale, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing
the original application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the
Tribunal ought to have considered that the punishment inflicted by the
respondents on the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the act
of misconduct proved against him. It is submitted that the petitioner
had unblemished service of more than 16 years till the date of incident.
It is submitted that the allegations of not taking the panchas along with
the raiding party where the minors were playing cards / gambling was
not proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was
not charged for not maintaining the case diary and was only charged for
not taking the relevant entry in the same. It is submitted that for an
extremely minor misconduct, the punishment of withholding of one
increment for a year should not have been imposed. It is submitted that
the Tribunal ought to have held that the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority was just and proper.
Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents has supported the order of the
Commissioner of Police, Amravati and the order of the Tribunal. It is
submitted that the petitioner had not made an entry in regard to the
incident in the police diary, which he was supposed to make. It is
submitted that since the petitioner belonged to a disciplined force, it
was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have made the entry
about the incident in the police diary. It is submitted that the
Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of withholding of
one increment of the petitioner for one year in view of the proof of
misconduct against him. The learned Assistant Government Pleader
sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
4 J-WP-3539-15.odt
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it
appears that while working as a Police Sub-Inspector, the petitioner had
conducted a raid at a place where Jagran was being held and some
minors were playing cards. The petitioner brought the minors that were
indulging in playing cards to the police station and permitted them to
leave as it was found that they were not indulging in gambling. The
statement of allegation was served on the petitioner on 15/10/2010. As
per the allegations, the petitioner did not take the panch witnesses to
the place where the minors were playing cards. It was also alleged that
the petitioner had not made an entry in the police diary about the
incident. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he did not
make an entry about the incident in the police diary when the minors
were brought in the police station. The parties examined the witnesses
and it was held that most of the allegations made against the petitioner
were not proved. In the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner could
not have taken the panchas to the place where the incident occurred as
the raid was conducted during the night time and panchas were not
available at that time. It was further found that the minors were not
involved in gambling and they were merely playing "rummy" for their
entertainment during the Jagran. It was observed that in view of the
fact that the minors were not involved in gambling, the petitioner set
them free. It was found in the enquiry that no money was found with
the minors that were playing cards. The only allegation that appears to
have been proved against the petitioner was that he did not make an
entry in regard to the incident in the police diary. The petitioner had
unblemished service from the date of appointment in the year 1994 till
the statement of allegations were served on him in the year 2010. The
only allegation that was proved against the petitioner was in respect of
not making the entry in the police diary. Since it was found that the
minors were not indulging in gambling, it is quite possible that the
petitioner Police Sub-Inspector, who had asked the minors to leave the
5 J-WP-3539-15.odt
police station had taken a sympathetic view in the matter and did not
record about the incident in the police diary. In view of the
unblemished service of the petitioner for about 16 years, the
respondents ought to have warned the petitioner. The punishment
inflicted on the petitioner appears to be disproportionate to the act of
misconduct committed by him. In the circumstances of the case, serious
cognizance should not have been taken about the failure on the part of
the petitioner to make the entry in regard to the incident in the police
diary. The Tribunal, however did not consider these aspects of the
matter and dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner,
solely by observing that it was not possible to interfere with the order of
the Disciplinary Authority when one of the allegations levelled against
the petitioner was proved. In the circumstances of the case, the
observations made by the Tribunal that the failure on the part of the
petitioner to make entry in the police diary would result in raising of
the eye-brows and would create a doubt in the mind of the general
public were not warranted. Such observations were not warranted,
specially when the minors had not indulged in gambling and they were
simply playing cards for their entertainment with a view to spend time
during Jagran.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside.
The order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment on the
petitioner is also quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
