Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Bahadur Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2023
Author: Vishal Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 13th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 424 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH S/O ARYAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX-
SERVICEMAN, R/O 69, N-1, D-SECTOR
GOVINDPURA BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI D.K. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME MINISTRY,
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SETH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
2
ORDER
As per office report, there is delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal.
Condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A. No.5027 of 2023. For the
reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay condoned.
2. Assailing the order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in disposing off Writ Petition No.23531 of 2003 and remanding the
matter back to the disciplinary authority for consideration on the question
of quantum of punishment, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working in the
respondent-department on the post of LDC (Sub-Inspector Ministerial) in
the District Police Office, Bhopal. He was chargesheeted on 30.12.1994
levelling two charges. The petitioner submitted a representation to the
charges and thereafter on completion of departmental enquiry, his services
were terminated. He preferred an appeal which was allowed vide order
dated 13.09.1994. He pointed out that he was suffering from some mental
agony, therefore, was not in a position to defend himself and requested for
payment of salary and compensation. No reply was filed on merits but
prayed for dropping of the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry and
based on the enquiry report dated 10.05.1995, second show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a reply pointing out the
fact that an amount of Rs.800/- has already been recovered from him and
he has not committed any misconduct but vide order dated 19.06.1995, he
was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed
vide order dated 29.09.1995. Mercy petition before the respondent No.2
was also dismissed on 12.03.1996. Thereafter, he approached the
erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. After abolition
of the same, the matter stood transferred to this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
4. It is the case of the petitioner that similarly situated employees
namely Arun Kumar Sonwane and Keshav Prasad Pandey were also
chargesheeted. In view of the joint enquiry, their services were dismissed.
Out of the three delinquents, Arun Sonwane preferred Original
Application No.196 of 1996 before the MP SAT and vide order dated
07.03.2000, the same was allowed. The order of dismissal was quashed on
the ground that the common proceedings are not permissible under the
Police Regulations. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service. Thereafter,
Keshav Prasad Pandey also filed Original Application No.730 of 1997
which was transferred to this Court and was disposed of vide order dated
24.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.23723 of 2003 with a direction to consider
the case in the light of the case of Arun Sonwane (supra). The petitioner
points out that they have now been reinstated into the service, therefore,
the petitioner also preferred a representation for reinstatement into service
which was rejected vide order dated 15.03.2012.
5. It is argued that for an embezzlement of amount of Rs.800/-, the
petitioner's services were terminated which is contrary to the Regulation
226 of M.P. Police Regulations which provides for termination, dismissal
and removal from service as a last punishment. It is argued that once
similarly situated employees are being reinstated in view of the judgment
passed by the Court, the case of the petitioner being identical, similar
benefits should have been extended to him. Learned Writ Court has failed
to consider the aforesaid aspect of the case and has dismissed the writ
petition. The merits of the case were not even considered by the Writ
Court.
6. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/State has
supported the impugned order drawing attention of this Court to Para 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
thereof wherein the petitioner has virtually confined his relief for
reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. The Writ Court has
granted the aforesaid relief to the petitioner. Therefore, against the remand
order on the prayer made by the petitioner, no writ appeal is maintainable,
therefore, he has prayed for its dismissal.
7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. Para 9 of the impugned order reflects that the petitioner has
confined his arguments for a relief for reconsideration on the question of
quantum of punishment which reads thus :
"9. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that for the amount of Rs.800/- the petitioner was
terminated from the service which is contrary to the Regulation
226 of Police Regulation which provides that the order of
termination, dismissal and removal from service ought to have
been resorted as a last punishment. He further submitted that
the amount of Rs.800/- has already been recovered from
petitioner and he is out of employment since 1995. Before
termination he had a long service, therefore, the order of
punishment is too harsh and disproportionate to the
misconduct committed by him, hence, the same may kindly be
modified and reduced to any lesser punishment as provide in
Police Regulations. In support of his contention, he has placed
reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Santosh Katariya vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in which the
punishment order has been set aside with the direction to the
Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the punishment except
dismissal or removal from the service."
9. The aforesaid makes it clear that apart from raising other grounds in
the writ petition, at the time of arguments, the petitioner has confined his
prayer for imposition of any other punishment except dismissal or
removal from service and has prayed for reconsideration on the question
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
of quantum of punishment. The learned Writ Court has considered the
aforesaid aspect of the case and finding the prayer of the petitioner to be
reasonable, granted the same in the following terms :
"16. In the case in hand the allegation against petitioner was
that he paid Rs. 200/ as house rent to another constable for the
period of three months in total Rs.800/-. The said amount has
been recovered from him. He is out of employment since 1995 .
He was in ministerial cadre of police establishment. In another
departmental inquiry in which he was terminated along with
two others, they have been reinstated by the respondents. The
petitioner was denied reinstatement because of pendency of the
writ petition. Since the petitioner has not challenged the
findings of enquiry officer on merit hence the impugned orders
are upheld on merit. The punishment of dismissal is seems to
be excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct committed
by him. But his past service is also liable to be considered
while imposing the appropriate punishment. Hence
departmental appeal is remitted back to the appellate authority
with the direction to reconsider the punishment awarded to the
petitioner."
10. Thus, once the relief which has been claimed by the petitioner has
virtually been extended to him, no case for filing a writ appeal is made
out. The learned Writ Court has made it clear that the authorities shall
impose a punishment on the petitioner after considering his past record
and other punishment awarded to him and will be at liberty to consider the
case of the petitioner for reinstatement as has been granted to the other
employees. Therefore, virtually, the case is open before the authorities for
reconsideration on the question of quantum of punishment. No ground is
available to the petitioner to challenge the well reasoned order passed by
the learned Writ Court on the prayer made by the petitioner. Under these
circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
11. Consequently, the writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vinod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
