Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Lyunis Kalara on 28 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2024
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Vs.
LYUNIS KALARA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the
appellants/State.
Shri RBS Tomar - Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
is preferred by the appellants (respondents before Writ Court) being
crestfallen by the order dated 27-09-2023 passed by learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.5866 of 2012 whereby the writ petition
filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner")
has been allowed and matter was relegated back to the respondents
authorities for taking a fresh decision on quantum of punishment.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that a departmental enquiry was
initiated against the petitioner who was holding the post of Head
Constable in the respondents department levelling the allegations of
dereliction of duty and absentism on duty i.e. on 18/19-02-2010 when
the Tahsil Treasury, Vidisha was looted by an unknown person.
Petitioner replied the charges levelled against him and thereafter, the
disciplinary authority/Superintendent of Police, Vidisha after
considering the evidence available on record, passed the order of
removal of petitioner from services vide order dated 23-02-2011.
Petitioner challenged the said order in appeal before Dy. Inspector
General of Police but failed and his appeal was dismissed vide order
dated 15-04-2011. Thereafter he preferred second appeal before the
Inspector General of Police which was dismissed vide order dated 16-
09-2011 and finally his mercy petition was also dismissed by the
Director General of Police vide order dated 16-02-2012. Aggrieved
by those orders, petitioner preferred writ petition which was allowed
by learned Single Judge, relegating the matter to the respondents'
authorities to pass a proportionate punishment order therefore,
appellants/State of Madhya Pradesh are before this Court.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the
absence of petitioner on the date when the loot was committed at the
Treasury where he was posted as guard-in-charge, cannot be taken a
simple lapse of duty on part of petitioner because petitioner remained
absent without prior intimation to the higher authorities. Further
petitioner also failed to provide proper security to the place of which
he was made guard in charge. Dereliction of duty on part of petitioner
resulted in loot of Rs.7,90,000/- from the Tahsil Treasury, District
Vidisha. Petitioner remained on unauthorized/unsanctioned leave on
the fateful date when such robbery was committed. Learned Writ
Court committed error in interfering in the order of removal of
petitioner on the ground of quantum of punishment as the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner was just and proper. Thus, prayed for
setting aside the order passed by learned Writ Court.
4. Per contra, while supporting the order passed by learned Writ Court,
it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since
petitioner was ill therefore, he could not join his duties, that cannot be
termed as intentional. The date on which the robbery was committed
at the treasury, petitioner was not present and because of lapse on part
of other police constables who permitted an unknown person to the
guard-room, said incident took place. The punishment as imposed by
the appellants is disproportionately shocking, therefore, rightly it was
set aside by learned Writ Court. Petitioner served the police force with
unblemished record. Thus, prayed for dismissal of writ appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. This is a case where the appellants are challenging the order passed
by learned Writ Court whereby while setting aside the order of
termination of services of petitioner, matter was remanded back to the
competent authority to take fresh decision on the quantum of
punishment. The charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to
dereliction of duties and absence on duty without prior intimation to
the higher authorities are proved. From the record it also transpires
that petitioner being guard-in-charge failed to take cognizance of the
fact that an unknown person is visiting the guard-room and taking
liquor with other police personnel posted in the security of treasury.
Petitioner did not inform his superior officers about this.
7. In the case in hand, petitioner along with other delinquents were
given the duty to guard the treasury. Treasury contains public money
and important documents. Thus the trust was reposed by the
department over the petitioner to protect public money/documents.
They failed in discharging their duties and maintaining the trust.
8. Be that as it may. They allowed a stranger to get familiar with them
and their proximity with that stranger indicates their casualness
towards their duties. Why they allowed a stranger to be proximate
with them once they were posted in security of treasury. This very
disposition undermines them to be a fit person for job in Police
Department.
9. Not only that, that stranger took benefit of proximity and given them
Prasad containing intoxicate and poisonous substance which resulted
into unconsciousness of delinquents while stranger managed to take
money from the treasury. All these facts are such which deserve deep
scrutiny and contemplation because it is a case resulted into trust and
faith deficit.
10. The departmental authorities after giving proper opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner took specific decision for their removal
which in the facts and circumstances of the case was just and proper.
Once objective assessment is carried out then entering into the
quantum of punishment, takes the case into subjectivity. The
departmental authorities had taken into consideration all the aspects
of the matter and thereafter rightly passed the order of removal of
petitioner from services as he was found to be non-serious about his
duties assigned to him.
11. Departmental enquiry was conducted in which enquiry officer found
the charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the appeals and
mercy appeal were also dismissed by the authorities. Therefore as per
the mandate of Apex Court in the case of Union of India and
Another Vs. K.G. Soni, 2006 (6) SCC 794, scope of interference is
restricted because only decision making procedure can be looked into,
not the decision itself. Here, the punishment as imposed by the
respondents is not shockingly disproportionate, rather it is in
consonance with the misconduct of petitioner.
12. Since police department is a disciplined force where any dereliction
of duty may have adverse ramifications. The charge of absence of
petitioner on duty is also grave in nature because the place of which
he was made guard-in-charge was treasury where public money and
documents were housed, therefore, the punishment as imposed by the
respondents cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. Hence,
learned Writ Court erred in holding that punishment is shockingly
disproportionate. Petitioner as police personnel not only found of
doubtful integrity but was incompetent also and shared highest level
of casualness and carelessness. This trait may endanger not only
public money but even public at large whenever situation arises so.
Therefore, on this count also he deserves to be removed from the job.
13. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, in the
considered opinion of this Court, no manifest illegality or palpable
perversity is reflected in the order of removal of petitioner from
services and learned Writ Court erred in concluding that punishment
imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate, hence set
aside. The appeal preferred by the appellants/State is hereby allowed
affirming the order of removal of petitioner from services.
14. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2025.04.07
18:36:19 +05'30'
