Manaklal Neware vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 3599 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manaklal Neware vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2025

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

        NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7249




                                                                                      1                                                   W.P. No.10361/2012

                            IN THE                      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                                                      BEFORE
                                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                             ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                           WRIT PETITION No. 10361 of 2012
                                                                          MANAKLAL NEWARE
                                                                                          Versus
                                                                UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                          ............................................................................................................................................
                          Appearance:
                          Shri Deepak Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
                          Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for the respondents.
                          ............................................................................................................................................
                                                                                     ORDER

Assailing the order dated 16/08/2021 passed by respondent No.2, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated, the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was in service in the respondents Department. His wife made a complaint to Police Station Bharweli, District Balaghat on the basis of which a criminal case in Crime No.1162/2009 for offence under Sections 323, 494 and 498-A of IPC was registered against the petitioner. Petitioner took casual leave from his duty and during said period, he was arrested by the Police Station Bharweli in Crime No.1162/2009 at around 03:30 PM and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat, who released him on bail on the same day. He remained in police custody only for 3 to 4 hours. A departmental enquiry was set up against the petitioner. Petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and has submitted that he does not want to say anything with regard to the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7249

matter as the alleged case is pending before the Judicial Court having competent jurisdiction. After completion of enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved. A brief note of allegations was served to the petitioner, who in turn filed response to the said and submitted that the matter is pending adjudication before the competent Criminal Court. Thereafter, an enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority and a notice was issued to the petitioner along with enquiry report asking for his response within 15 days. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner.

3. It is argued that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings could not continue simultaneously as they were virtually on same facts. Once the criminal case was pending adjudication against the petitioner, the Authorities are debarred from taking any further action as far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned and those proceedings should be kept in abeyance but the Authorities placing reliance upon the CISF Rules, 2001 had continued with the proceedings and found the charge No.1 proved against the petitioner. Therefore, in terms of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, petitioner was removed from service. He preferred an Appeal before the Authorities which is pending consideration. As the appellate proceedings have not attained finality, petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition seeking quashment of impugned order dated 16/08/2011 in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application being I.A. No.10153/2013 and placed on record the judgment dated 11/06/2013 passed in criminal case registered against the petitioner where he has been acquitted of all the charges.

4. It is argued that once the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges, then the punishment of removal which has been imposed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7249

Authorities is per se illegal. Petitioner time and again in the departmental enquiry has informed the Authorities regarding pendency of criminal case before the Competent Court but for one or the other reason, they have not considered the request of petitioner to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance and continued with the same. It is argued that it is the duty of concerning Police Station who arrest the delinquent employee to inform the employer regarding registration of criminal case. The said act has not been carried out by the Authorities. Therefore, petitioner cannot be blamed for not informing the Authorities at the relevant time regarding registration of criminal case. Even otherwise, petitioner was taken into custody, where he remained in police custody for only 3 to 4 hours. Therefore, he could not inform the Department regarding registration of criminal case or his arrest. Looking to the fact that punishment of removal from service is too harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashment of impugned order with a direction to the Authorities to re-consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of any other penalty except dismissal as looking to the factum of acquittal of petitioner his conduct does not appear to be negligent towards his duty in the Department.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the contention and has supported the impugned order. By filing a detailed reply, they have virtually pointed out that the entire departmental proceedings have taken place following the due procedure and there is no deviation in the same. It is argued that the scope of judicial review in cases of departmental enquiry is limited to the extent of any deviation from the procedure to be adopted by the Authorities. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1996

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7249

SC 484 and Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Apart from the admitted position that the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, issuance of charge-sheet to him and thereafter initiation of disciplinary proceedings and virtually charge levied against the petitioner found proved in the departmental enquiry which culminated in passing of removal order of the petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against him. It is not a case wherein compromise has been entered into between the parties. It is the honorable acquittal given to the petitioner vide judgment dated 11/06/2013 passed in Criminal Case No.1162/2009, as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges.

8. The record further indicates that petitioner was taken into custody and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and thereafter released on bail on same day. Virtually, he was in custody only for 3 to 4 hours. These was a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife which led to registration of a criminal case. The charges levied against the petitioner in criminal case are not found proved against him. Therefore, the said charges cannot be made a base to terminate the services of the petitioner, especially in the event when petitioner has been granted honourable acquittal. Petitioner may be negligent towards the act which he has committed in not informing the Authorities regarding registration of criminal case and his short arrest due in time, the fact remains that first of all, it is the duty of concerning Police Station to inform the employer regarding registration of criminal case against the delinquent employee and secondly, it can only be termed as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7249

misconduct but the misconduct committed by the petitioner is not so grave that the punishment of termination from service should be imposed upon. The allegations leveled against the petitioner in a criminal case are found to be false, therefore, the registration of criminal case against the petitioner does not amount to tarnishing the image of department.

9. Under these circumstances, the punishment which has been imposed against the petitioner appears to be disproportionate.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.G. Soni reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794 has considered the factum of disproportionate punishment and has held as under:-

"14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision.

15. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.

Further, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7249

punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."

11. If the aforesaid analogy is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the punishment of termination from service imposed upon the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be disproportionate and on higher side.

12. Under these circumstances, the punishment of termination of service is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority from the stage of submission of enquiry report for re-consideration on the question of quantum of punishment. The disciplinary authority is expected to impose any other punishment on the petitioner except that of removal from service.

13. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to resume the duties forthwith.

14. With aforesaid observation, petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr