Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hukum Singh Dangi 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. 1358 of 2024
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Vs.
HUKUM SINGH DANGI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the
appellants/State.
Shri Prashant Sharma - 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.56 of 2013 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
Constable in the respondents department levelling the allegations of
dereliction of duty 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 also dismissed vide order dated 16-09-
2011. 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
inaction of petitioner on the date when the loot was committed at
the Treasury where he was posted as guard, cannot be taken a
simple lapse of duty on part of petitioner because petitioner and
other delinquents permitted a stranger to the guard room, took
liquor with him and consumed prasad also given by him. Further
petitioner failed to provide proper security to the place of which he
was assigned the duty. Dereliction of duty on part of petitioner
resulted in loot of Rs.7,90,000/- from the Tahsil Treasury, District
Vidisha. 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 it
was not the petitioner who took liquor with that stranger and the
main allegations were against Kuber Singh and Badri Prasad as they
permitted stranger to enter into the guardroom. For the fault on part
of other guards, petitioner cannot be punished. 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 not reporting the matter properly to the
higher authorities are proved. From the record it also transpires that
petitioner being guard 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
18:36:40 +05'30'
