Grossly Disproportionate Punishment; Shocks Conscience Of Court: Allahabad HC Reinstates Constable Acquitted By Trial Court But Dismissed By Department Enquiry
The Allahabad High Court reinstated a constable in service who was acquitted by the trial court but dismissed by the Departmental Enquiry and said that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the offence, which shocked the conscience of the Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar ordered, “In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in Suresh Kumar Tiwari v. D.I.G., P.A.C. and another, in our view the broad principle, which emerges is that normally, it is the disciplinary authority, which should be best left with the duty of imposing the punishment after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is well settled that in case, if on the admitted facts, the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the offence, which shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court has the power and jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed.”
Advocate Umesh Vats appeared for the Appellant, and Standing Counsel Ratan Deep Mishra appeared for the Respondents.
A special writ appeal was filed assailing the validity of a judgment passed by the High Court in a writ petition, which was dismissed. The Appellant was a Constable in Civil Police and was assigned the special VVIP duty. One day, he suffered from a high fever, acute headache and severe body pain, and as such, he could not report for duty. Therefore, he was compelled to take a rest. Two days later, some altercation had erupted between his friends and the son of his landlord.
However, the Addl Superintendent of Police was passing nearby on his official jeep and, upon hearing the noise, stopped there. It was alleged that some miscreants had falsely informed the Addl. Superintendent of Police said that the Appellant had an illicit relationship with his maid, and some of them had also seen them in an obscene situation as the door of the house was open. The police had reached there and arrested the Appellant and the main, and a First Information Report was registered under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Appellant was suspended on the same day, and the departmental enquiry was initiated.
Though in the criminal proceeding, he was acquitted in the departmental enquiry, he was found guilty. Consequently, he was dismissed from the services. The appeal and revision were also rejected, giving rise to the writ petition in question, which was dismissed by the order impugned.
The Court said that neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Appellate Authority found the absence of the appellant willful. Evidence produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim was ignored by the authorities concerned, and on the basis of irrelevant facts and surmises, the petitioner was held guilty.
It observed, “It is trite law that the High Court normally does not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. As already noticed above, since the charges on which the punishment was invoked even imposed are taken to be correct, what is now left at this belated stage to be considered and examined is, as to whether the punishment imposed was commensurate with the said charges or not.”
The Court also perused the judgment of the trial court, which acquitted the Appellant on the basis that the Prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges against him. The Court noted that the disciplinary proceeding and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand, and the charges were not just the same but identical, and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. It added that merely on the basis of two days absence, that so due to ailment, no such major penalty could be inflicted.
“After examining the factual position, which emerges from the criminal proceeding, we find that the same witnesses were examined in departmental enquiry, who were examined in the criminal trial. The trial court had acquitted the petitioner-appellant after examining all the prosecution witnesses. The conclusion is that the acquittal in criminal proceeding was after full consideration of prosecution witnesses and prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge and the same can easily be arrived at after reading of judgment in entirety.”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that the Appellant must be reinstated in service with 25% back wages along with all consequential benefits.
Cause Title: Constable No. 118 Awadhes Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:157383-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Umesh Vats and Balwant Singh
Respondents: Standing Counsel Ratan Deep Mishra and Advocate Piyush Shukla