Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harsh Vardhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 28806 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
HARSH VARDHAN SINGH S/O LATE OMKAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONSTABLE 88
RESERVE POLICE LINE, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVAM CHHALOTRE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPTT. VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. INSPECTOR GENREAL OF POLICE
HOSHANGABAD HOSHANGABAD ZONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL HOSHANGABAD
HOSHANGABAD ZONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HOSHANGABAD
DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 30.03.2018
passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad imposing the penalty of
stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner and declaring
the period of absence of the petitioner to be one which will not entitle him for
payment of salary for that period.
The petitioner had filed appeal against the said order as contained in
Annexure P-8 under Regulation 262 of the MP Police Regulations but that
appeal too is dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2018 passed by Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Hosangabad Range, Hoshangabad. Hence, this
petition.
Petitioner's contention is that vide Annexure P-1, charge sheet was
issued to the petitioner. Three charges were levied. Vide enquiry report, the
enquiry officer found only one of the charges, i.e. charge number 2 to be
partially proved and held that other charges are not proved. Thereafter, the
disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad issued notice
Annexure P-3, dated 05.03.2018 to the petitioner disagreeing with the finding of
the enquiry officer and asking the petitioner to show cause why he be not
punished. Thereafter, reply was filed on 22.03.2018 and then order of
punishment was passed. It is further submitted that disciplinary authority and
appellate authority have not considered the evidence of defence witnesses.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Deputy
Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. J. Hussain, (2013) 10
SCC 106 to point out that juridical review of order of departmental penalty or
one passed in appeal, is maintainable.
Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned Government Advocate, in his turn,
supports the impugned order and submits that disciplinary authority after
recording his disagreement and the reasons for disagreement on appreciation of
evidence which were led before the enquiry officer, has recorded findings of
fact and thereafter following the principles of natural justice and giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed impugned order which cannot be
faulted with.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that three charges were to the effect that : first the petitioner
was guilty of unauthorised absence; second he had not produced medical
certificate in Form 3 within the prescribed time limit; and third that he had
violated the provisions of sub para (2) and (4) of Regulation 64 of MP Police
Regulations showing an act of indiscipline. It is submitted that all three charges
were found to be proved and, therefore, penalty of stoppage of one increment
with cumulative effect is awarded.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Dadra &
Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775 has held "in exercise
of power of judicial review, however, the Court can interfere with the
punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in
defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and
interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate
suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the opinion the
Court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate cannot be a ground
to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities.
Thus, when this ratio of law is examined then the punishment imposed
being not shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, does not call
for any interference especially when principles of natural justice were followed.
After recording the reasons for disagreement with the enquiry officer and the
enquiry report furnished by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has
recorded the reasons, forwarded the copy of the same to the petitioner to
furnish his representation which petitioner had admittedly not furnished within
the prescribed time limit. Thus, when tested in terms of the parameters of laid
down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gulabhia M. Lad (supra),
impugned orders having been passed on due appreciation of evidence, cannot
be substituted with Court's own wisdom, merely on presumptions.
In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ks
