Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Narayan Sharma vs The State Of M.P. on 8 July, 2025
W.P. No. 17382/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION NO. 17382 OF 2020.
KAILASH NARAYAN SHARMA
VS.
THE STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHERS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh- Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent-
State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O R D E R)
(Reserved on : 02/07/2025)
(Pronounced on : 08/07/2025)
The present petition has been filed challenging the order of removal
Annexure P/5 dated 31.07.2013 so also the appellate order Annexure P/6 dated
17.10.2013 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against order of removal was
rejected by the Inspector General. Further challenge is made to the order
Annexure P/8 passed by the Director General of Police dated 28.11.2015
whereby the punishment of removal was converted to punishment of
compulsory retirement and the said order Annexure P/8 has been confirmed in
mercy appeal by the State Government vide order Annexure P/10 dated
18.05.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the case is
only of absence from service for a period of 05.11.2012 till 27.02.2013 and
looking to the short period of absence, the termination of the services of the
petitioner was not proper because he had already submitted an application for
leave and further that the other allegations that he manipulated and forged the
discharge ticket issued by the Hospital wherein his father was receiving
treatment is concerned, the same is also not established.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on the judgment of the
coordinate Bench in the case of Munni Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P. &
others, reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 613 so also on an unreported judgment in
the case of (Ramesh Singh Jat Vs. State of M.P. & others) in W.P. No.
4629/2005 (Gwalior). It is contended that the punishment of dismissal/
removal in case of short absence of 115 days is not proper in view of clause
178 of M.P. Police Regulation because the leave could have been sanctioned
even without medical certificate upto four months and the present period of
absence is less than four months. It is contended that the punishment is
shockingly disproportionate in as much as the petitioner had put in long years
of service and only for charge of absence of 115 days he had been dismissed
from service and though it was later converted to the penalty of compulsory
retirement.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the
judgments relied by the petitioner relate to punishment of dismissal whereas in
the present case the petitioner is only punished with compulsory retirement
because the penalty of dismissal was reduced to compulsory retirement by the
Director General. It is further contended that it is not a simple case of absence
from duties but more serious misconduct is of forging discharge ticket of his
father in changing the date of surgery and date of discharge to suit the period of
unauthorized absence and therefore the misconduct of the petitioner becomes
grave and is not limited to a simple case of unauthorized absence. Reliance is
placed on various documents filed along with the reply of the State.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the petitioner has subjected to departmental enquiry
on the following charges.
(1) Being unauthorizedly absent from 05.11.2012 to 27.02.2013
i.e. total of 115 days.
(II) Carrying out manipulation in discharge ticket of hospital by
changing the date of admission from 26.10.2012 to 02.11.2012, date
of surgery from 07.11.2012 to 20.02.2013 and date of discharge
from 10.11.2012 to 25.02.2013.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing had argued that
the petitioner himself did not carry out any such manipulation in discharge
ticket and he admits that the date of admission was indeed 26.10.2012, date of
surgery 02.11.2012 and date of discharge was 10.11.2012. It was argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the manipulation in the dates might have
been done by his father who is now no more, only to save the petitioner from
action being taken against him for being unauthorizedly absent. The said
submission, excuse and explanation is simply astounding.
8. The respondents have filed reply and with the reply the original
discharge summary has been brought on record as Annexure R/1 as per which
the father of the petitioner was discharged on 10.11.2012 after undergoing
TURP Surgery for Prostate on 07.11.2012. The manipulated discharge
summary is also on record as Annexure R/2 in which all these dates have been
manipulated and date of discharge has been changed to 25.02.2013, apart from
manipulation in date of admission and date of surgery.
9. The application of the petitioner for leave is also on record as Annexure
R/3 in which he has categorically mentioned the date of admission as
02.11.2012, date of surgery as 20.02.2013 and date of discharge as 25.02.2013.
The statements of Dr. Sunil Tiwari who treated the father of the petitioner was
also recorded which is filed as Annexure R/4 and it has been mentioned that
discharge summary showing date of discharge 10.11.2012 is the correct
discharge summary.
10. Another application is on record as Annexure R/5 in which he has given
another explanation that the surgery was carried out in two parts. However,
from the discharge ticket and statement of doctor it is duly established that the
surgery was carried out on 07.11.2012 and even the subsequent application
Annexure R/5 is simply misleading.
11. The Authority took the misconduct of the petitioner and the previous
service record in consideration whereby he has been continuously punished
from time to time and got as many as 35 penalties in the service career, apart
being involved in the criminal case under Section 302, 307,323, 506 and other
sections of the IPC under Crime No. 77/2004 at Police Station Shahpur District
Sehore. Looking to the applications of the petitioner wherein he had clearly
mentioned the date of admission and date of discharge as per the manipulated
discharge ticket, the assertion of the petitioner cannot be accepted that it was
his father who made the manipulation and he cannot be held guilty of
manipulation. The petitioner had raised averments in the departmental appeal
that it has not been proved that who actually conducted the manipulation in
discharge ticket.
12. It was not criminal trial, but a Departmental Enquiry. Once a forged
document is used by a person and he attempts to take benefit of the forged
documents, it becomes immaterial that who had committed the actual forgery.
The petitioner knew fully well that the date of discharge of his father was not
25.02.2013, despite this he tried to take benefit of manipulated and forged
discharge ticket in which the date of discharge was changed from 10.11.2012
to 25.02.2013. Even during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner expressed possibility that the manipulation might have been done by
father of the petitioner. Attempt to shift the blame to a deceased person can not
be appreciated and reflect on the delinquent character of the petitioner.
13. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the charges against the
petitioner of being unauthorizedly absent and of manipulating the discharge
ticket in such a manner so as to cover the date of admission, surgery and
discharge for the entire period of unauthorized absence of 115 days is duly
established. Even otherwise the scope of interference in the finding of facts
recorded in the departmental enquiry is very limited. (See: B.C. Chaturvedi
Vs. Union of India 1995 (6) SCC 749).
14. So far as the reliance placed on various judgments of this Court is
concerned, in the case of Munni Singh (supra), the punishment was dismissal
for unauthorized absence of 104 days and leave application has been rejected
on the ground that it is not supported by medical certificate. The said case was
not a case of manipulating the medical certificate but was a case of there being
no medical certificate. So far as the case of Ramesh Singh Jat (supra) is
concerned, in the said case after punishing the employee for unauthorized
absence of 129 days, extra-ordinary leave for the said period had been
sanctioned by the authorities. Further, the coordinate Bench held that looking
to the position that it was a simple case of absence from duties of 104 days, the
punishment of dismissal was shockingly proportionate and remanded the
matter to impose any other punishment except dismissal. Therefore in the
aforesaid cases also in cases of simplicitor absence this Court found the
punishment of dismissal/ removal from services as shockingly disproportionate
and granted liberty to the authority to pass any other punishment except
dismissal or removal.
15. In the present case not only the case is not a simplicitor absence but the
case of absence and try to cover up absence by producing a manipulated
medical certificate by interpolating the dates mentioned in the certificate, and
there being no penalty of dismissal awarded to the petitioner and the penalty
being reduced to penalty of compulsory retirement by the Director General,
The punishment does not appears to be shockingly disproportionate. In fact
looking to the guilt of the petitioner, the penalty appears to be at a lighter side.
Therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere in the quantum of penalty. It is
settled in law that the penalty can be interfered in judicial review only if the
court holds that the quantum of penalty to be shockingly disproportionate,
which is not so in the present case as this court has already held that the
punishment is in fact seems to be lower and lighter side. The scope in finding
and quantum of penalty is very limited, unless the penalty shocks the
conscience of the Court. (See: Union of India and others vs. P.
Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Pravin Kumar vs. Union of
India reported in (2020) 9 SCC 471.
16. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed
by maintaining the order passed by Director General whereby the petitioner
has been compulsorily retired.
17. During course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that even
the pensionary dues of the petitioner have not been settled despite awarding
penalty of compulsory retirement. If that be so, it is directed that all the retiral
benefits of the petitioner as per the punishment order of compulsory retirement
be released in his favour within a period of one month from the date of
production of copy of this order, subject to the petitioner carrying out all
statutory formalities..
18. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
