Santosh Kumar Ladia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3474 MP

                                    1                                  WP-4675-2016
         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    WP-4675-2016
          (SANTOSH KUMAR LADIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 20-07-2021
        Heard through Video Conferencing.

        Shri R. M. K. Vyas, learned counsel for petitioner.
        Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned PL for respondent/State.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging orders dated 22.7.2014 and 12.3.2015.

Commandant, 6th Battalion, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur, in departmental enquiry, passed order removing petitioner from service. Departmental inquiry was conducted against petitioner for using unparliamentary language and behavior contrary to Police Regulation, Para-64 (4) and (11).

On 25.10.2013 petitioner remained absent from joining parade and without giving information absconded from duty. Earlier also petitioner was given two punishments for indiscipline, but he failed to improve himself. Punishment was imposed for indisciplined act of petitioner committed on

duty.

Petitioner being aggrieved by aforesaid order preferred an appeal before Inspector General of Police, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur. Appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that petitioner was not provided documents asked for by him and he was not given proper opportunity of hearing in departmental inquiry.

During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that order passed by Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate to the act of petitioner. On this ground, he made a prayer for setting aside impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment reported in State of M.P. and Others vs. Hazarilal, (2008) 3 SCC 273. In said case 2 WP-4675-2016 it has been held that discretionary power must be exercised judicially and carefully keeping in view the nature of offence and sentence imposed. Penalty imposed may not be disproportionate to the act of delinquent employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on judgment reported in Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and others,

(1999) 2 SCC 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that this case is similar to that of petitioner. In this case reliance was placed on documents which were not mentioned in charge sheet. Petitioner has not been supplied documents, therefore, there is violation of principle of natural justice. Similarly petitioner has relied on judgment reported in Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 10 SCC 539, Mohd. Yousuf vs. Director General of Fire Services, Andhra Pradesh and others, (2013) 4 SCC 265 and submitted that in case of violation of natural justice, the order passed in departmental enquiry was set aside.

Learned counsel for respondent/State submitted that petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable vide order dated 4.7.2008 in the establishment of respondents. Petitioner was first time charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence from duty for 77 days. Petitioner was also prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and to avoid custody he has submitted false medical certificate. Inspite of aforesaid Disciplinary Enquiry and punishment imposed upon petitioner, he has not shown any improvement. On 12.7.2013 another Departmental Enquiry was conducted against petitioner and he was imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and a last opportunity was granted to him to improve himself vide order dated 31.12.2013. Petitioner has not shown any improvement. It is submitted that 14 witnesses were examined in Departmental Enquiry. Petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses. It is further submitted that all the documents which were relied upon in the charge-sheet were supplied to petitioner. Petitioner has not raised any grievance regarding non-supply of documents during Departmental 3 WP-4675-2016 Enquiry and only vague submission has been made before this Court. In view of aforesaid submission learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On going through the pleadings of writ petition, petitioner has not raised ground of disproportionate punishment in the Writ petition, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the said ground.

Considering the record of petitioner and the fact that despite giving repeated opportunities, petitioner has not improved himself and has repeatedly committed indisciplined act in a disciplined Force, therefore, removal of petitioner from service is not a disproportionate punishment

imposed upon petitioner. Petitioner has raised the ground that he has not been supplied documents and his rights of natural justice has been violated. Petitioner has not filed any application to show what documents have been demanded by him in the writ petition. Petitioner has also not mentioned the details of the documents which was demanded by him but not supplied. In view of same, it is clear that petitioner has only made vague allegations in the Writ Petition.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no ground exists for interfering in the order passed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.

Writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2021.07.24 12:25:20 +05'30'