'Shocking & Disproportionate': MP High Court Quashes Dismissal Of Driver Who Was Late For VIP Duty Of Attending To High Court Judge

While setting aside the dismissal of a driver as "punishment" for reaching late on VIP duty to attend to a High Court Judge, the Madhya Pradesh High Court remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed on the delinquent.In doing so, the Court said that the punishment of removal from service was 'shocking' and 'disproportionate'.A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, “However, looking to the charge of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal appears to be disproportionate. The allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to reach at VIP Guest House on time and therefore, the Judge of Allahabad High Court could not board the train as scheduled. In our considered opinion allegation is not sufficient for dismissal of the delinquent from the service. The punishment of removal from the service is in outrages defines of logic and is shocking and if the punishment imposes by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscious of the Court, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and to impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”The court was hearing a plea wherein the petitioner, who was working on the post of Peon in the office of District and Sessions Judge, District Court, Bhopal had challenged the order of punishment by which hewas removed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority after conducting the Departmental Enquiry.The petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver on temporary basis in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, District Court, Bhopal and later on he was appointed in the regular pay scale. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for alleged misconduct by him. As per the charge sheet, petitioner was posted on VIP duty and was assigned the duty of Driver to attend Justice S.K. Singh of Allahabad High Court during his visit to Bhopal. The petitioner was supposed to take Justice Shri S.K. Singh from VIP Guest House Bhopal to Railway Station to board the train for Allahabad at 1.30 AM. The petitioner did not reach VIP Guest House along with car at the designated time and later on reached at 2.15 AM. By the time they reached Railway Station, the train for Allahabad had already departed. Justice S.K. Singh made a written complaint to the Assistant Protocol Officer Bhopal stating that the petitioner besides being late was in a drunken state.Inquiry Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order inflicting the penalty of "removal from the service" upon the petitioner under Rule 10 (viii) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not sent for medical examination and no witness was examined during the inquiry to prove the allegation that he was in a drunken state. It was argued that only on the basis of written complaint of High Court Judge of Allahabad, the allegation cannot be accepted. With regard to reaching the VIP Guest House belatedly, the petitioner gave his explanation that between his residence and the place where the vehicle was parked, the tyre of his bicycle got punctured and therefore, he could not reach on time. It was further contended that "being annoyed", the High Court Judge made the written complaint stating that the petitioner was in drunken state. Further, it was submitted that the department failed to prove the allegation against the petitioner and petitioner had already examined defence witness to explain the delay, but the same was not considered either by the Investigating Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the as per the petitioner, the order of dismissal from service was disproportionate.On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations were duly proved against the petitioner and the department has duly examined the concerned APO and proved the charges by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It was further submitted that the inquiry was conducted in fair and impartial manner and full opportunity was afforded to the delinquent to cross examine the witnesses of department and examine the defence witnesses. After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the findings of Inquiry Officer were recorded on the basis of material available on record and inadequacy of evidence cannot be subject matter of judicial review.“The High Court can interfere with the order of punishment only in case of violation of the provisions of rules or principles of natural justice are proved. This court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as appellate authority. This court can...

'Shocking & Disproportionate': MP High Court Quashes Dismissal Of Driver Who Was Late For VIP Duty Of Attending To High Court Judge

Anukriti Mishra

Tags