Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagendrda Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23553
1 WA-848-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 848 of 2019
NAGENDRDA MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
The present appeal has been filed on the ground that a bare perusal of
the charge-sheet, it is apparent that only one charge has been framed but it
has been divided in three allegations as enumerated in the charge-sheet.
Charge No.2 is; "शराब के नशे म होकर जनता के साथ जाितगत आधार पर गाली
गलौच कर धािमक भावनाओं को ठे स पहुच
ँ ाते हुये िशकायत का अवसर दे ना"
2. In the entire inquiry report, as has been argued by the counsel for
appellant that no point of time, the writ petitioner was found in intoxicated
condition still the Inquiry Officer has recorded charge No.2 is found proved
merely on the basis of statement of witness Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 10, who are
annoyed with the appellant and under influence of the police authorities they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23553
2 WA-848-2019
made such statements.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Writ Court did not
take into consideration the contradiction of statements of such witnesses and
contrary to the record, the Writ Court has recorded that, the appellant has not
established his case before the Inquiry Officer, hence the impugned judgment
deserves to be set aside.
4. In addition to above, learned counsel for appellant submits that in
respect of charge No.3, the Inquiry Officer had taken shelter of statements of
departmental witness Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 and recorded finding that
charge No.3 is found proved.
5. It is also submitted that on a bare perusal of statements of all the
witnesses adduced by the department, it is apparent that with pre-determined
and mala fide intention the statements have been given with ill intention
against the appellant. This material fact has not been taken into consideration
by learned Writ Court, hence the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. The writ petition was filed before the Writ Court assailing the
order of removal from service dated 28.08.2002 (Annexure-P/6) and
subsequent orders dated 11.01.2003 and 29.04.2004 whereby appeal and
mercy appeal preferred by the writ petitioner were rejected by the competent
authority.
7. The case of the writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that the
writ petitioner was served with a charge-sheet Annexure-P/1 dated
25.01.2002 wherein three charges were alleged against him. He denied the
charges and, therefore, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23553
3 WA-848-2019
after recording the evidence, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and
opined that charge No.1 has not been proved whereas remaining charges
were proved.
8. Further case of the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the
departmental inquiry and punishment are defective because (i) the writ
petitioner was not permitted to engage a defence assistant in the
departmental inquiry; (ii) the deposition of defence witnesses have not been
considered; (iii) There is a perversity in the inquiry report and (iv) the
punishment is harsh and excessive.
9. On the other hand, the respondents has supported the impugned
order and submitted that there is no procedural impropriety or perversity in
the departmental inquiry. The punishment imposed is commensurate to the
misconduct committed by a member of a disciplined force. To butress the
said submissions, he placed reliance on State Bank of India and others Vs.
Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others, (2001) 2 SCC 316 and Sanjay Kumar Singh
Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 14 SCC 692.
10. The writ Court observed that scope of judicial review in cases of
departmental inquiry is limited. There is no dispute in the said fact. The Writ
Court has to examine only the decision making process. If the said process
runs contrary to principles of natural justice which has resulted into serious
prejudice to the writ petitioner, interference can be made as decided in
Apparel Export Promoter Council Vs. A.K.Chopra, 1999(1) SCC 759, Bank
of India Vs. T.Jogram, (2007) 7 SCC 236 and State of U.P Vs. Manmohan
Nath Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 310. Thus the punishment can be interfered with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23553
4 WA-848-2019
only if it shocks the conscience of this Court.
11. From the record it is clear that writ petitioner at any point of time
did not ask for engagement of a defence assistant and failed to make out that
demanded for the same was declined by the Inquiry Officer. Thus, he failed
to establish as to what prejudice has been caused if defence assistant was not
provided to him whereas he was allowed to cross-examine and plead his case
properly.
12. As charge No.1 was not found proved, therefore, there is no
discussion required about the said charge. Regarding charge No.2, which is
serious, wherein it is alleged that the writ petitioner under influence of
liquor has misbehaved with the public and abused them by hurting their
religious feelings. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Suraj Singh (P,W.1),
Tekchand (P.W.5), Rafiq Khan (P.W.6), Yogesh (P.W.7) and Dhirendra
(P.W.10) have entered the witness box and in clear terms deposed that writ
petitioner threatened the member of pubic saying that "You are Hindu, if you
would have been a Muslim, I would have divided you apart in two pieces".
The writ petitioner could not show whether these statements were
demolished during cross-examination. The Disciplinary Authority accepted
the inquiry report.
13. So far question of non-consideration of defence witnesses is
concerned, the Inquiry Officer's report shows that such statement of defence
witnesses did not throw any light whether writ petitioner has misbehaved
with members of public as per the deposition of prosecution witnesses
mentioned above. Their statements are different and do not cause any dent on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23553
5 WA-848-2019
the prosecution story. Thus, no prejudice is caused if defence witnesses were
not considered by the Inquiry Officer.
14. Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the case decided
on 10.03.2025 in Writ Petition No.23801/2023 (Shiv Prasad Tiwari Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and others) Para 11. In that case, the charges were
regarding consumption of liquor alone and which was not proved in the
medical examination but in the present case though the allegations are of
consuming liquor, however, after consuming liquor, the appellant/writ
petitioner further abused and threatened the members of public.
15. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was a member of
disciplined police force. The charges proved against him are very serious
regarding abuse to the public and if the punishment is disproportionate to the
misconduct, certainly the Court has to interfere. However, in the present
case, keeping in view the statements made by the complainants, which has
not been demolished by the writ petitioner during the departmental inquiry,
no case has been made out to interfere in the matter.
16. In view of the above, we find no illegality or perversity in the
order passed by the learned writ Court. Finding no merit in the present
appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Biswal
