Sunil Kumar Jain vs State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4053 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4053 MP
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sunil Kumar Jain vs State Of M.P. on 24 March, 2022

Author: Anand Pathak

           1
            HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 Writ Petition No.5785/2006 (S)
       (Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. The State of M.P. and others)

Gwalior Bench: Dated 24.03.2022
      Shri Alok Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Devendra Choubey, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated

11.05.2005 (Annexure P/1), passed by the In-charge Commandant, SAF,

17th Bn., Bhind as well as orders dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure P/2) passed

by the Deputy Inspector General, S.A.F., Gwalior and 03.07.2006

(Annexure /3) passed by the Director General of Police, P.H.Q. Bhopal

respectively, whereby order passed by the In-charge Commandant, SAF,

17th Bn. Bhind has been affirmed. By the order of In-charge

Commandant, petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of one

increment with cumulative effect.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that

respondents have not considered the factual matrix of the case in correct

perspective and caused illegality. The allegations, which have been

levelled against the petitioner, have not been proved by the witnesses and

documents. It is his submission that respondent No.4 is not appointing

authority of the petitioner whereas appointing authority is Superintendent

of Police and respondent No.4 has no right to pass punishment order

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.5785/2006 (S) (Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. The State of M.P. and others)

against the petitioner. As per the petitioner, in inquiry report dated

23.04.2005 submitted by Inquiry Officer, charges were not proved and

even then impugned orders have been passed which do not contain any

reason for reaching to the conclusion. Therefore, he prayed for setting

aside the aforesaid impugned orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National

Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84,

in the case of Ram Krishna Kanade Vs. State of M.P. and others

reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 698, in the case of Ritika W/o Sourabh

Giriya Vs. Manaklal S/o Takhatmalji Giriya and others reported in

2018 (1) MPLJ 341 and in the case of B.S. Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P.

and others reported in 2008 (1) JLJ 291 to support his submissions.

3. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposed

the prayer and submitted that where three authorities have appreciated

the factual details, then scope for interference is very limited. Therefore,

he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

appended thereto.

5. The case, in hand, is in respect of departmental inquiry in which

the Commandant vide order dated 11.05.2005 inflicted penalty of

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.5785/2006 (S) (Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. The State of M.P. and others)

stoppage of one increment.

6. Articles of charges are reproduced for ready reference:-

vkjksi dzekad 1&% vkj] 307 jkejkt flag }kjk viuh iRuh dk ulcanh vkWijs'ku djk;s tkus ij 'kklu }kjk ns; vfxze osruo`f} ds ,fj;j dh jkf'k ds vkgj.k gsrq : [email protected]& fj'or ekaxdj Hkz"V vkpj.k dk izn'kZu djukA vkjksi dzekad 2&% vkj] 307 jkejkt flag }kjk fj'or u fn;s tkus ij vkj] dks Lohd`r vfxze osruo`f} dk ,fj;j vkgj.k djrs le; tkucw>dj cnfu;fr ls de ,fj;j dh jkf'k vkgj.k dj vius drZO;ks ls izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] mnklhurk ,ao nqjkpj.k iznf'kZr djukA^^

7. After departmental inquiry being conducted, competent authorities

came to the conclusion about misconduct of the petitioner and rightly so

because allegation and inquiry report suggest that he committed

misconduct prima facie. Appellate authority also considered the facts and

legal position and thereafter, passed the impugned order.

8. Petitioner raised the ground of Rule 14(5)(C) of the Madhya

Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966,

but same do not support the cause of petitioner in any manner. Here, the

Enquiry Officer gave the inquiry report to the competent authority and

competent authority gave opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.5785/2006 (S) (Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. The State of M.P. and others)

thereafter, passed the impugned orders. There was no necessity for the

Enquiry Officer in the given facts and circumstances of the case specially

in absence of any provisions in this regard to give opportunity of hearing

separately, if he was dis-aggrieved with the recommendations of Enquiry

Officer partly exonerating the petitioner and partly implicating him. It

was not the cause of complete exoneration but Enquiry Officer found

some misconduct on the part of petitioner. Therefore, contention of the

petitioner is that if disciplinary authority disagreed by the findings of

Enquiry Officer then he may have to show cause delinquent employees

about his opinion appears to be misplaced prima facie in the present set

of facts.

9. Scope of judicial review in respect of administrative law is well

settled in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. K.G. Soni, 2006

(6) SCC 794 in following manner:-

"14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.5785/2006 (S) (Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. The State of M.P. and others)

process and not the decision.

15. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."