“Delinquent Cannot Demand Mercy As A Right”: MP High Court Rejects Constable's Plea For Reinstatement After State Modifies Punishment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition of a police constable against compulsory retirement, observing that once the State had shown leniency by modifying his dismissal to compulsory retirement in a mercy petition, he had no enforceable right to seek further judicial review. The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed, "Mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end. A delinquent person has no legal right even to have his case considered by the Home Secretary in connection with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. A person who shows mercy “decides that a particular punishment would be appropriate or just and then decides to exact a punishment of less severity than the appropriate or just one.” It can be said that mercy is best viewed as a free gift; an act of grace, love or compassion that is beyond the claims of right, duty and obligation'. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on February 17, 1981 and was promoted to the post of head constable on May 12, 1987, after qualifying for the departmental examination. A complaint was lodged against him, following which a preliminary inquiry was conducted. A formal chargesheet was issued, and a departmental inquiry was initiated. The inquiry found the charges proved and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. On February 28, 2002, the Superintendent of Police passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter filed a departmental appeal, which was rejected on October 24, 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before State Government, which was partly allowed and modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Superintendent of Police was not his appointing authority and therefore lacked jurisdiction to impose a major punishment such as dismissal. He relied on the case of Harisingh Parmar and Ramesh Kumar Sahu to assert that judicial review was permissible where punishment was excessive or shocked the conscience of the court. He sought reinstatement with back wages, seniority and promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector for which he has allegedly qualified. The counsel for the State argued that under the MP Civil Service Rules 1996, the Superintendent of Police is a competent appointing authority upto the rank of head constable. Further, it was argued that the petitioner had already received reduced punishment in his mercy petition. The court noted that there was no statutory provision to file a mercy petition. The court noted that the State, despite there being no provision for a mercy petition, showed leniency to the petitioner by modifying the punishment to compulsory retirement. The bench noted that the petitioner ought to remain satisfied with the relief he was able to obtain through the mercy petition. Additionally, the court observed that an order passed in a mercy petition is not ordinarily subject to judicial review, as mercy is not a legal right. Mercy, the bench observed, was a free gift or an act of grace, compassion and love which is beyond the claims of right, duty and obligations. Thus, the bench concluded that the State government had shown mercy to the delinquent by imposing a lesser punishment and therefore, the present petition lacked any substance. Case Title: Babulal Deewan v State of MP (WP. No. 1336 of 2008)For Petitioner: Advocate Alok KatareFor State: Government Advocate B. M. PatelClick here to read/download the Order

“Delinquent Cannot Demand Mercy As A Right”: MP High Court Rejects Constable's Plea For Reinstatement After State Modifies Punishment

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags