Rajendra Singh Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3734 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Singh Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 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 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 21143 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAJENDRA SINGH CHANDEL S/O LATE B.L. CHANDEL,
                           AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX- HEAD
                           CONSTABLE, R/O VILLAGE MALRAI, POST UGLI, DIST.
                           SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI NAVNEET DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
                                 SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
                                 H EAD Q UARTER S BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                                 BALAGHAT    DIVISION BALAGHAT (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDLA
                                 DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Petitioner's contention is that petitioner is aggrieved with the quantum of punishment handed over to him i.e. the dismissal from service on account of a

minor scuffle with a private individual on way and the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

It is submitted that complaint was made to the concerned S.H.O. about the Marpeet which was allegedly committed by the petitioner and without going into the merits of the case, impugned order dated 22.02.2018 has been passed by the respondent No.2, which has been affirmed in appeal and mercy appeal vide order dated 25.04.2018 and 17.07.2018.

It is submitted that the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate specially looking to the fact that petitioner had performed his duties from 1993 to 2018 i.e. for good 25 years and, therefore, any punishment

lesser than the dismissal could have been awarded including that of compulsory retirement, but dismissal will jeopardise the whole future prospects of the petitioner and will cause dent to his family life.

Shri Arnav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State, submits that petitioner earned two major penalties and he was dismissed on two occasions at earlier point of time, but in appeal lenient view was taken and he was reinstated. It is, thus, submitted that no mercy is required in the matter now and the petition be dismissed.

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."

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the chronology of events and also the fact that past conduct cannot over shadow the decision of the decision makers and the decision is to be taken only in the context of the evidence produced in the departmental enquiry, impugned orders of punishment are hereby quashed. Matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to consider and pass fresh orders on merits 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.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.