Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Kokarde (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 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 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 103 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. DILIP KOKARDE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT.
HARSHLATA KOKARDE W/O LATE SHRI DILIP
KOKARDE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O 53,
DHOBHIGHAT NAI BASTI NAGPUR
(MAHARASHTRA)
2. KU. HIMANSHI D/O LATE SHRI DILIP KOKARDE,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT. HARSHLATA KOKARDE W/O LATE
SHRI DILIP KOKARDE R/O 53, DHOBHIGHAT NAI
BASTI NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)
3. KU. KASHIS D/O LATE SHRI DILIP KOKARDE,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINOR GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT. HARSHLATA KOKARDE W/O LATE
SHRI DILIP KOKARDE R/O 53, DHOBHIGHAT NAI
BASTI NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)
4. PRATHAM S/O LATE SHRI DILIP KOKARDE, AGED
ABOUT 12 YEARS, MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT. HARSHLATA KOKARDE W/O LATE SHRI
DILIP KOKARDE R/O 53, DHOBHIGHAT NAI BASTI
NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI D.K. DIXIT - ADVOCATE AND SHRI SHAILESH JAIN -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE SECRETARY HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. POLICE
HEAD QUARTER S POLICE HEAD QUARTER,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 08-02-2024
18:18:35
2
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
HEADQUARTERS JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
It is a case of punishment, whereby, the Superintendent of Police
Chhindwara, vide order dated 23.05.2001, finding dereliction of duty on the part
of the petitioner in applying leave in the name of maternity requirements of his
wife participating in a 'Nasha Mukti Abhiyan and distributing different
pamphlets, has been found to be in violation of the terms and conditions
contained in Police Regulation 64(1) and has been visited with a penalty of
removal from service.
It is submitted by Shri Dixit that this penalty is too harsh and
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It is submitted that petitioner is no
more. His legal heirs are substituted and they are prosecuting the case. It is
further submitted that five days absence of the petitioner and the consequent
order of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs.
Union of India and another [2012 AIR SCW 1633], has observed as under :
" 16. The question whether 'unauthorised absence from
duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour
unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided
without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or
because of compelling circumstances.
17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances
under which it was not possible to report or perform duty,
such absence can not be held to be wilful.
18. Absence from duty without any application or prior
permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it
does not always mean wilful. There may be different
eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from
duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his
control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in
such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of
devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a
Government servant."
Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment is set aside. Matter is
remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders after taking into
consideration the judgment of Supreme Court in Kurshnakant B. Parmar
(supra) within thirty days of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In above terms, petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
