Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagram Singh vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 8TH OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 936 OF 2025
JAGRAM SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Singh Chauhan- learned Counsel for appellant.
Shri Praveen Newaskar- learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents- Union
of India.
ORDER
Per: Justice Hirdesh:-
Appellant has preferred the instant intra-Court appeal under Section 2(1) of
Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
assailing the final order dated 21st of March, 2025 passed by writ Court in Writ Petition
No.5218 of 2009, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant (writ petitioner therein)
challenging the order of dismissal from services on account of misconduct passed vide
dated 05-10-2007, 02-06-2008 and 10-11-2008, has been dismissed.
(2) It is the contention of appellant that he was deployed in CRPF, Neemuch on 10-
03-1999. He continuously rendered his services and later, he also rendered his services
in J&K with utmost sincerity and dedication. There was nowhere any complaint against
him. But, on 02-03-2007, it was reported that on the point of rifle, appellant made a
scuffle and indecent behaviour with co-employee i.e. CHM, therefore, a notice was
issued on 24th of March, 2007 for initiation of Departmental enquiry by the authority
concerned. An action was taken by the Department. Disciplinary authority concurred
with findings of Enquiry Officer and forwarded copy of enquiry report to appellant
vide memo dated 28th of April, 2007. Appellant submitted his explanation on 05-05-
2007. Disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from services upon him
vide order dated 07-05-2007. Being dissatisfied, he filed an appeal before the authority
which was dismissed vide order dated 05-10-2007. Being dissatisfied, he again filed an
appeal, which was too dismissed by authority vide order dated 02-06-2008. Being
dissatisfied, he at last filed a mercy appeal before authority which was also dismissed
vide order dated 10-11-2008. Dismissal of petitioner from his services was put to
challenge in the writ Court and the writ Court dismissed the petition of appellant vide
order impugned.
(3) Challenging the order impugned, appellant has preferred the instant writ appeal,
with averments that charges levelled on 02-03-2007 against him alleging that he had
made a scuffle and misbehaviour with CHM on the point of rifle, is false. On the
alleged date of incident, the appellant was not intoxicated. He had been serving for a
long time with utmost sincerity and dedication without any complaint. Proper
investigation was not done in matter. Appellant has been implicated on the basis of
mixed evidence by the Enquiry Officer. It is further contended that in Srinagar, there is
a rule to keep rifle loaded as it is a terrorist area and there was no intention of the
appellant to harm anyone. He has no habit of drinking alcohol. If the appellant had
been intoxicated, he should have been prevented from being deployed on duty. The
departmental enquiry was conducted in a very short time taking the evidence of
witnesses of Department. Appellant has been treated unfairly because concerned
authority wanted to get rid of him. The main object of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution is that those who have been pardoned for minor mistakes from time to
time in the Department, should also be pardoned, however, the Department did not
consider the rule of pardon, even though there is provision for pardon. So far as charge
of taking alcohol by the appellant is concerned, no medical examination has been
conducted. There was no opportunity of hearing given to the appellant. There is clear
violation of principle of natural justice as well as Fundamental Right of the appellant
and orders are passed with an oblique and ulterior motive, although there is no serious
charge against appellant. Under these circumstances, it is just and proper to reinstate
the appellant in services. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
(4) Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for Union of India opposed the
contentions of appellant and submitted that enquiry was conducted absolutely as per
the procedure prescribed and the Disciplinary Authority acted keeping in view the
Rules prescribed and the laws of natural justice. Although sufficient opportunities were
given to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses, appellant declined the same
which is available on record. It is further contended that member of a discipline force
cannot be permitted to commit misconduct and expect leniency. There is no infirmity in
enquiry proceedings conducted, impugned punishment for dismissal from services
imposed upon the appellant as well as order passed by appellate authority rejecting the
appeal of appellant. There was no merit in writ petition and, therefore, the writ Court
has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of this appeal.
(5) Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
(6) So far as the contention of appellant that there is clear violation of principle of
natural justice as well as Fundamental Right of appellant is concerned, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 2
SCC 779 held that principle of Audi Alteram Partem has its own sanctity but the said
principle of natural justice is not always put in straitjacket formula. That apart, a person
or an authority must have a legal right or right in law to defend or assail. Natural
justice is not an unruly horse. Its applicability has to be adjudged regard being had to
the effect and impact of the order and the person who claims to be affected and that is
where the concept of necessary party becomes significant. This aspect has also been
taken care of by Division Bench of this Court {See: Vikas Gupta Vs. Smt. Meera
Singh and others, 2007(2) EFR 46}.
(7) The concept of principle of ''Natural Justice or audi alteram partem doctrine''
although is required to be complied with but at the same time it has some exceptions.
In catena of judgments including the judgments rendered in A.P.Social Welfare
Residential Educational Institutions Vs. Pindiga Sridhar, (2007) 13 SCC 352,
Haryana Financial Corpn. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31, State of
Chhattisgarh Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Senger, (2009) 13 SCC 600, Indu Bhushan Dwivedi
Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 11 SCC 278, Natwar Singh Vs. Director of
Enforcement, (2010) 13 SCC 255 and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 519, all discussed
in detail on the different facets of said doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem, Principle of
Natural Justice/Opportunity of Hearing quotient and discussed the exceptions also in
detail.
(8) In the matter of Natwar Singh (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately
discussed as under:-
"26. Even in the application of the doctrine of fair play there must
be real flexibility. There must also have been caused some real prejudice
to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical
infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must
depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the
rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt
with and so forth. Can the Courts supplement the statutory procedures
with requirements over and above those specified? In order to ensure a
fair hearing, Courts can insist and require additional steps as long as such
steps would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation."
27. In Lloyd Vs. McMahon, Lord Bridge observed: (AC pp. 702 H-
703 B)
"My Lords, the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved
on tablets of stone. To use the phrase which better expresses the
underlying concept, what the requirements of fairness demand when any
body, domestic, administrative or judicial, has to make a decision which
will affect the rights of individuals depends on the character of the
decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the
statutory or other framework in which it operates. In particular, it is well-
established that when a statute has conferred on any body the power to
make decisions affecting individuals, the courts will not only require the
procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but will readily imply
so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural
safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness".
28. As Lord Reid said in Wiseman Vs. Boardman: (AC p.308C)
"....For a long time the courts have, without objection from
Parliament, supplemented procedure laid down in legislation where they
have found that to be necessary for this purpose..."
29. It is thus clear that the extent of applicability of principles of
natural justice depends upon the nature of inquiry, the consequences that
may visit a person after such inquiry from out of the decision pursuant to
such inquiry
48. On a fair reading of the statute and the Rules suggests that
there is no duty of disclosure of all the documents in possession of the
adjudicating authority before forming an opinion that an inquiry is
required to be held into the alleged contraventions by a notice. Even the
principles of natural justice and concept of fairness do not require the
statute and the Rules to be so read. Any other interpretation may result in
defeat of the very object of the Act. Concept of fairness is not a one way
street. The principles of natural justice are not intended to operate as
roadblocks to obstruct statutory inquiries. Duty of adequate disclosure is
only an additional procedural safeguard in order to ensure the attainment
of the fairness and it has its own limitations. The extent of its
applicability depends upon the statutory framework.
49. Hegde, J. speaking for the Supreme Court propounded:
"In other words, they (principles of natural justice) do not
supplant the law of the land but supplement it" [see A.K. Kraipak Vs.
Union of India14]. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation;
nothing more but nothing less (see Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief
Election Commr..)
(9) In the matter of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as under:-
"24. However, every violation of the rules of natural justice may not be
sufficient for invalidating the action taken by the competent authority/ employer and
the Court may refuse to interfere if it is convinced that such violation has not caused
prejudice to the affected person/ employee."
(10) In the matter of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed as under:-
"38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the
principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner
mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly
remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible
principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all
depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to
which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain
exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain
circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be
sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing
may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending
upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing but even
cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of
the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating
to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is
very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the
statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there
is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held,
the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this
reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held
to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain
circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by
reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and
so on.
39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case
as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While
emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in
straight-jacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have
highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of
natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural
fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc.
Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason -
perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be
utterly compelling - it is felt that a fair hearing 'would make no
difference' - meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate
conclusion reached by the decision-maker - then no legal duty to
supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord
Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation[20], who said that a
'breach of procedure...cannot give (rise to) a remedy in the courts,
unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost
by the failure. The court does not act in vain'. Relying on these
comments, Brandon LJ opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports
Authority[21] that 'no one can complain of not being given an
opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would
have availed him nothing'. In such situations, fair procedures appear
to serve no purpose since 'right' result can be secured without
according such treatment to the individual."
(11) On perusal of documents appended with writ petition, it transpires that there is
serious allegation of misconduct and misbehaviour against appellant that on the alleged
date of incident, he misbehaved and manhandled one co-employee i.e. CHM and
cocked his service rifle and aimed the same on said co-employee. Departmental
enquiry was conducted in an authoritative manner and enquiry report was considered
by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority upon consideration of enquiry
report had come to a decision that the allegations against the delinquent personnel i.e.
appellant are of serious nature. It was on the basis of evidence, disciplinary authority
had arrived at a conclusion that act of appellant is against the rule of discipline force
and behaviour/conduct is not acceptable in a disciplined force like CRPF. The crime of
delinquent personnel is unpardonable. The order of termination was, therefore, passed
on the basis of Service Rules of CRPF Act, 1955.
(12) So far as contention of appellant that he was diligently discharging his duties
and his service career was unblemished is concerned, the ACRs of the appellant show
that he remained absent without prior sanction of leave during his eight years' service
career.
(13) So far as contention of appellant that there is violation of principle of natural
justice as the departmental enquiry was conducted with a biased manner is concerned,
the appellant was afforded with full opportunities of hearing by supplying copies of the
statements of prosecution witnesses and relevant documents. Even otherwise, during
the course of enquiry, the appellant left the Camp without prior permission from higher
authority, therefore, an FIR was also lodged against him. Neither appellant had
cooperated in enquiry proceedings nor he had received acknowledgment of statements
of witnesses and documents for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, therefore,
action taken against the appellant is just and proper and no principle of natural justice
has been violated. Therefore, it cannot be said that findings recorded against appellant
are perverse or based on no evidence. Appellant could not point out any defect in the
departmental enquiry. The appellate authorities have rightly given stamp of approval on
the order of dismissal of services of the appellant. Even, scope of interference in the
matter of departmental enquiry is very limited.
(14) Having perused the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the
findings recorded by learned Single Judge are based on facts available on record and
are impeccable and the conclusion has been drawn after applying the correct principles
of law.
(15) Consequently, no indulgence is warranted in the instant intra-Court appeal.
(16) Appeal being sans merits, is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
