Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganpat Singh vs The Union Of India on 20 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 560 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
GANPAT SINGH S/O SHRI RATAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBE,
SERVICE CONSTABLE, RAF/CRPF (WRONGFULY
REMOVED) R/O VILLAGE AND POST VADELAV, TEHSIL
GODHRA, DISTRICT PANCHMAHAL (GUJARAT)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NILESH KOTECHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL, C.R.P.F. CENTRAL OFFICE
CAMPUS, BLOCK 1, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-
110003
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, R.A.F., C.R.P.F.,
SPECIAL SECTOR R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, R.A.F.,
C.R.P.F. NEW DELHI
5. COMMANDANT 107 EN. RAF/CRPF GOVINDPURA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(UNION OF INDIA BY MS.KANAK GAHARWAR - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/20/2023 7:56:46 PM
This Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is
filed by Petitioner Ganpat Singh challenging the order of punishment passed by
Respondent No.5 Commandant, RAF, Govindpura, District Bhopal dated
6.5.2000 as contained in Annexure P/14 whereby the petitioner is visited with
penalty of removal from service with effect from 6.5.2000 (AN). Petitioner has
also assailed the order passed by the appellate authority on 10.10.2000
Annexure P/16 rejecting his appeal and thereafter the revision filed by the
petitioner was rejected vide order Annexure P/18 dated 15.2.2021 and the
mercy petition was also rejected vide order Annexure P/20 dated 20.7.2001.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two charges were levelled
against the petitioner. Charge No.1 was of indiscipline by not obeying the
orders of the officer commanding and misbehaving with the CHM
H.C.Mannalal and Charge No.2 was of consuming liquor. Petitioner was denied
the Charge No.1, who had admitted the Charge No.2 with a condition that the
petitioner had consumed liquor outside the duty hours and, therefore, that
should not have been taken as a misconduct.
Reading from the evidence led in the matter, it is pointed out by learned
counsel for the petitioner that Nursing Assistant P.Bhagat was examined before
the Inquiry Officer where he deposed that he had taken the petitioner to the
referral hospital at District Siwan where one Dr.B.N.Sohi Medical Officer was
present and he informed that he had not done medical of any person, who had
consumed liquor till date. On their request, he smelled the petitioner, asked him
to walk and talked to him. Thereafter, he wrote a letter that the petitioner seemed
to have consumed liquor but he is conscious. Thereafter, another witness
H.C.Mannalal was examined, who proved the Charge No.1 by saying that the
Signature Not Verified
petitioner had disobeyed the orders of the officer commanding. Thereafter,
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/20/2023 7:56:46 PM
Mustafa Ali was examined and the Commanding Officer R.K.Parihar had given
his written in Hindi whereas the statements of all other witnesses are in English.
Reading the statement of S.I.Harvansh Singh, it is evident that he had
vehemently denied the charge No.1 and infact the charge No1 never stood
proved but arbitrarily disproportionate punishment has been inflicted on the
petitioner and, therefore, by allowing this writ petition, the impugned order of
punishment and the orders passed in appeal, revision and mercy petition need
to be quashed.
Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment
of Hon'le the Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi versus Union of India &
Others (1995) 6 SCC 749 to point out that any punishment, which is
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, needs to be set aside. Reliance is
also placed on the decision of Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in
Pooran Singh versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh 2016 (4) M.P.L.J
580 wherein it is held that the preliminary enquiry is conducted only to explore
as to whether a regular departmental enquiry is necessary. After the preliminary
enquiry, if a regular departmental enquiry is ordered and the statement of
witnesses recorded in preliminary enquiry is supplied to the delinquent
employee then no prejudice is caused to the employee. If there is no evidence to
sustain the charges framed against the delinquent then he cannot be held guilty
and the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer would be perverse. Reliance is
also placed on the Division Bench Decision of this Hon'ble High Court in
Hemar Singh Parmar versus Union of India & Others 2016 (3) M.P.L.J
509 wherein it is held that the departmental enquiry is essential component. The
reasonable opportunity and principle of natural justice must be followed. He
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/20/2023 7:56:46 PM
further places reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble High
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Maan Singh &
Another 2009 (1) M.P.L.J 532 wherein it is held that refusal to accept the
award is not a misconduct under Regulation 64(4) of the Police Regulation.
Reliance is lastly placed on the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court
i n Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India versus Khaleel Ahmed
Siddiqui (1982) LIC 1140 to point out that the principles of natural justice are
required to be followed and the punishment should not be disproportionate to
the alleged misconduct.
Learned counsel for the Respondent/Union of India in her turn submits that
the Central Reserve Police Force is a Uniformed Service and discipline is the
hallmark of its service. There is evidence on record to show that the petitioner
had misbehaved with the fellow officer as can be inferred from the statements
given by H.C.Mannalal and Harvansh Singh. Despite opportunity, the petitioner
did not cross-examine any of the witnesses, which were produced. He even did
not produce any defence witness in support of his case and, therefore, the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not required to be interfered with.
She places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of
India & Others versus P.Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 where in
Paragraph No.12, the Apex court has laid down the circumstances under which
indulgence can be shown by the High Court. The Apex Court held that the High
Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court
can only see whether:- (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the
enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is
violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d)
the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/20/2023 7:56:46 PM
some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the
authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary
and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such
conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence, which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of
fact is based on no evidence.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
material available on record, it is evident that none of the circumstances as
mentioned in Paragraph No.12 of the Apex Court' Judgment in Union of India
& Others versus P.Gunasekaran (supra) are available in the present case. In
Paragraph No.13 of the very judgment referred to above, the Apex court has
held that the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with
the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in
accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the
reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based; (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear
to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its
conscience.
When all these aspects are taken into consideration in the light of the
above referred judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner then two
things are apparent that the Central Reserve Police Force is a Uniformed
Service and the petitioner was on election duty. He was bound to obey the
orders of his Superior(s). There is evidence on record that he violated the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/20/2023 7:56:46 PM
orders of his superior(s) and, therefore, the Charge No.1 was found to be
proved. Similarly, the petitioner admitted consumption of alcohol though
outside the duty hours but no material was brought on record to show that he
was entitled to consume liquor while on an election duty after a certain time
limit, therefore, in absence of any material on record to record a contrary
finding, since the evidence cannot be reappreciated and prima facie the
principles of natural justice have been followed, the petitioner was given
adequate opportunity and even the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding
that he did not respond to the memorandum of charge and, theretofore, on
expiry of the suitable period, the punishment of removal from service was
inflicted in terms of the rules and according to the procedure prescribed and it
is evident from the proceedings of the Inquiry Report that the Inquiry Officer
had asked the petitioner as to whether he has any objection to him conducting
an enquiry and the petitioner has answered that he had no objection and
thereafter the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of cross-examination of
the witness to counter their statements, merely because the punishment of
removal from service has been inflicted, is not a sufficient ground to term it to
be disproportionate punishment especially when in a Uniformed Service,
discipline is hallmark,
Thus, when the impugned order(s) of punishment passed by Respondent
No.5 Commandant, RAF, Govindpura, District Bhopal dated 6.5.2000 as
contained in Annexure P/14, the Appellate Court Order Annexure P/16 dated
10.10.2000, the order passed in Revision Annexure P/18 dated 15.2.2021 so
also the order passed in mercy petition Annexure P/20 dated 20.7.2001 are
tested on the touchstone of the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent/Union of India then they do
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/20/2023 7:56:46 PM
not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/20/2023 7:56:46 PM
