Mangal Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6551 MP

                                                           1
                           IN      THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 24175 of 2003

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MANGAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SHI AM
                          SARAN SINGH R/O 4/13 POLICE LINE OPPOSITE POLICE
                          CONTROL ROOM, BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER

                          (NONE)

                          AND
                          1. THE STATE OF M.P. THOUGH SECETAY, HOME
                          (POLICE) DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL,
                          DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2. THE DIECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MADHYA
                          PADESH, POLICE HEAD QUATERS, JAHAGIRABAD,
                          BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, S.A.F.
                          GWALIOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4. THE COMMANDANT,          17TH     BATALION   BHIND
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS

                          (BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                          RESPONDENTS/STATE)

                                T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Petitioner has challenged the order inflicting penalty of termination (Annexure-A/1) so also the appellate orders (Annexure-A/2 and Annexure-A/3). Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 26-Apr-23 1:33:52 PM

Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that under similar facts and circumstances, the Original Application No.381/1993 filed by one Sam Bahadur was dismissed by the State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 3.2.1999 holding that the applicant was earlier given warning for unauthorized absence but thereafter when he did not refuse that the punishment of removal was inflicted, it does not call for any interference inasmuch as the petitioner being a member of Disciplinary Uniformed Force is required to maintain the discipline and obey the orders of the superior. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex 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 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 Panel Lawyer for the State and going through the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 26-Apr-23 1:33:52 PM

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.

Looking to the allegations made and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India & Others versus P.Gunasekaran (supra), no indulgence is required in the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which have been affirmed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority inasmuch as this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decisions of the disciplinary and appellate authorities. There is no material on record to show violation of principles of natural justice or lack of authority in the disciplinary body to take action.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE @shish

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 26-Apr-23 1:33:52 PM