Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajaram Badole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 W.A. No.1207/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
BENCH AT INDORE
WA No.1207/2020
Rajaram Badole ......................... Appellant
Vs.
State of MP through D.G.P. & Others ..................Respondents
...............................................................................................................
Coram:
Justice Sujoy Paul, Judge
Justice Shailendra Shukla, Judge
...............................................................................................................
Presence :
Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents-State.
...............................................................................................................
Whether approved for reporting : No
...............................................................................................................
ORDER
th
(26 February, 2021)
Per: Sujoy Paul, J. :
This writ appeal assails the order passed by learned Single
Judge in WP No.8434/2014 decided on 02/11/2020.
2) Leaned counsel for appellant submits that appellant was served
with a charge-sheet which was followed by a domestic inquiry. The
inquiry officer gave report and found certain charges as proved. The
Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police by order dated
15/04/2013 imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment
with cumulative effect. On petitioner's appeal, the Appellate
Authority i.e. DIG by order dated 13/07/2013 modified the
punishment by imposing a fine of Rs.500/-. The Inspector General of
Police (IG) issued show-cause notice on 16/11/2013 to the petitioner
with an intention to enhance the punishment. Petitioner filed his reply
dated 31/12/2013. The IG passed the order dated 08/05/2014 whereby
appellate order of DIG was interfered with and punishment order
passed by SP imposing penalty of withholding of one increment with
cumulative effect was restored. This order of IG was unsuccessfully
challenged before DGP, who dismissed the appeal on 01/09/2014.
3) The learned counsel for appellant submits that the DIG rightly
interfered with punishment and modified the punishment by imposing
fine. Stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major
punishment. As per Regulation 226(iv), it could have been imposed
when conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. In the instant case,
learned IG has mechanically exercised his revision power and
imposed a disproportionate punishment. Learned Single Judge has
committed an error in dismissing the writ petition.
4) The impugned order is supported by the learned Addl.
Advocate General.
5) No other point is pressed by the parties.
6) We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
7) The allegation in the charge-sheet against the appellant was
that he was insensitive and negligent. The complainant suffered an
injury which falls within the ambit of Section 307 of IPC, but
appellant registered crimes relating to offences of lesser gravity
whereas an arrow was found inserted in the body of complainant
Juvansingh.
8) Regulation 226(iv) reads as under:-
"With holding of increment either temporary or
permanent (or grade reduction in the case of head
Constables) is a suitable punishment for all cases of
serious dereliction of duty. It may also be inflicted for
culpable ignorance of police procedure, laziness or apathy
in conducting the work of the police station and the like.
Fair warning should be given in every instance and
opportunity for amendment afforded before the
punishment is awarded."
(emphasis supplied)
9) A plain reading of this provision makes it clear that in cases of
serious dereliction of duty, culpable ignorance of police procedure,
laziness or apathy in conducting the work of police station,
punishment of withholding of increment on permanent basis i.e.
cumulatively can be imposed. Thus, we are unable to persuade
ourselves with the argument that enhanced punishment by IG or in
other words restoration of punishment imposed by SP runs contrary
to aforesaid regulation or without authority and jurisdiction.
10) In our view, learned Single Judge has rightly held that
judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is concerned in
which no stricture is passed against present appellant is of no
relevance. It cannot be said that appellant can be held guilty only if
any such stricture/observation is passed by the Court while delivering
the judgment. If an employee has committed misconduct, under the
relevant conduct rules/regulations, the Competent Authority is
empowered to impose adequate punishment.
11) This is trite that scope of interference on the punishment by this
Court are limited. It is primarily the prerogative of Departmental
Authority to decide the quantum of punishment. This Court can
interfere in the punishment only when the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate. [See: B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and
others (1995) 6 SCC 749, Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759, Union of India v. Narain Singh,
(2002) 5 SCC 11, State of U.P. v. Jaikaran Singh, (2003) 9 SCC
228, Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lal (2004) 8
SCC 218, V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC, (2005) 7 SCC 338, State of
Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, (2008) 7 SCC 580,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain, (2013) 10 SCC 106,
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, Krishna
District Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. K. Hanumantha Rao (2017) 2
SCC 528 and Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471]
12) As analyzed above, no case is made out for interference. Writ
appeal fails and is dismissed.
Cc as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
Digitally signed by
Soumya Ranjan Dalai
Date: 2021.02.27
18:36:11 +05'30'
