Ramesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2507 Chatt

                                 1

                                                                    NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
               Writ Petition (S) No. 3152 of 2013
    Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Pachkour Sahu, Aged about
    52      years,        Ex.   Head     Constable       No.     1450,
    Dumartalab, Near        Girls Hostel      Amanaka,         Raipur,
    P.S. Azad Chowk, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raipur,
    Chhattisgarh.

                                                   ­­­Petitioner

                                Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary,
    Mantralaya,       Mahanadi         Bhawan,         New     Raipur,
    Chhattisgarh.

  2. Home      Department,       Through         the         Secretary,
    Mantralaya,       Mahanadi         Bhawan,         New     Raipur,
    Chhattisgarh.

  3. Inspector General of Police, Shankar Nagar Road,
    Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

  4. Superintendent of Police, Collectorate Building,
    Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                 ­­­Respondents

For Petitioner :­ Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State :­ Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

23/09/2021

1. Petitioner herein calls in question the order

dated 05/03/2011 (Annexure P/5) by which his

mercy appeal has partly been allowed and the

order of his dismissal has been converted into

order of compulsory retirement whereas petitioner

was inflicted with penalty of dismissal from

service by order dated 24/05/2010 (Annexure P/3)

which has been affirmed by the Appellate

Authority vide order dated 13/08/2010 (Annexure

P/4).

2. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that petitioner has

wrongly been dismissed from service vide order

dated (Annexure P/3) holding that on 23/01/2010,

petitioner intentionally and deliberately threw

the badge of one Constable Kamlesh Verma in the

ditch/drain which has amounted to serious

misconduct in accordance with Chhattisgarh Civil

Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The punishment of

dismissal from service is a major punishment

which could not have been inflicted upon the

petitioner for his alleged misconduct and

moreover, the punishment of dismissal from

service has now been converted into compulsory

retirement, which is disproportionate to the

misconduct of the petitioner, as such, the

punishment of dismissal from service inflicted

upon the petitioner which has now been converted

into compulsory retirement is liable to be set

aside.

3. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned State counsel, would

submit that petitioner being a Police Constable

himself committed a serious misconduct for which

the major punishment of dismissal from service

has rightly been inflicted upon him and it has

now been converted into compulsory retirement

which is strictly in accordance with law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

5. True it is that petitioner, being a Police

Constable himself, misbehaved with another Police

Constable and threw his name badge into the

ditch/drain, but the question is whether it

amounts to major misconduct warranting punishment

of dismissal from service now converted into

compulsory retirement.

6. It is well­settled that punishment which can be

imposed upon the employee after being found

guilty in a departmental enquiry, are generally

grouped under 'major penalties' and 'minor

penalties'. It has also been observed that

punishment should serve as a warning to others

rather than inflicting vengeance on the

delinquent Government servant. It needs to be

mentioned that this Court, in cases of

departmental enquiries and the findings recorded

therein does not exercise the powers of appellate

Court/authority. The jurisdiction of this Court

in such cases is very limited for instance where

it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated

because of non­observance of principles of

natural justice, denial of reasonable

opportunity; findings are based on no evidence,

and or the punishment is totally disproportionate

to the proved misconduct of an employee.

7. It is also well­settled that while exercising the

power of judicial review, the Court will not

substitute its own judgment for the decision of

the disciplinary authority unless:

(I) the order shocks the conscience of the Court;

(ii) no reasonable man would impose such

punishment;

(iii) the decision­maker must have taken leave of

his senses.

8. In the matter of Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P.1 it

has been held by the Supreme Court that

punishment or penalty to be imposed must be

commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

A disproportionate penalty would be violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution. (see also: State

of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh2). Likewise, in the

matter of State of Karnataka v. H Nagaraj3 Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that

judicial review will be competent when the

punishment was totally irrational i.e. in

outrageous defiance of logic.

9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in

light of the aforesaid principles of law laid

down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it

is quite vivid that in the present case, the

petitioner has been inflicted with major

punishment of dismissal from service which has

now been converted into compulsory retirement

holding that he, being a Police Constable

himself, threw the badge of another Police

Constable into the ditch/drain and thereby,

committed serious misconduct which is in

violation of Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 1965. The

1 (1983) 2 SCC 442 2 (2010) 5 SCC 783 3 (1998) 9 SCC 671

misconduct of the petitioner as found proved

against him may amount to minor penalty but the

action of the respondents inflicting major

penalty of dismissal from service and then

converting it into compulsory retirement is

totally irrational and in outrageous defiance of

logic and it is in violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. No reasonable man would

have imposed the penalty that has been imposed by

the Disciplinary Authority and which has slightly

been modified by the Appellate Authority.

Accordingly, the 05/03/2011 (Annexure P/5)

converting the major penalty of dismissal from

service inflicted upon the petitioner into

compulsory retirement is hereby quashed and

ordinarily this Court would have reverted the

matter to the Disciplinary Authority, but since

the order of the Disciplinary Authority was

passed in the year 2010, in order to ensure

finality of disciplinary proceeding and looking

to the misconduct of the petitioner, minor

penalty of stoppage of two increments with non­

cumulative effect is inflicted upon him. The

petitioner will be entitled for all the

consequential service benefits except for

backwages. The question of backwages will be

considered by the Appointing Authority strictly

in accordance with law within two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ

petition is allowed to the extent indicated

herein­above. No cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet