AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the counsel for the parties.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.4.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1553 of 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. For better appreciation, the impugned judgment reads as under:
In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.6.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby and where under the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he misbehaved with the passenger having a valid ticket and he was subjected to police cruelty and also for quashing of the appellate order dated 12.2.2004 issued under memo No. 67 by respondent No. 3 whereby and where under appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and confirmed the order of the respondent No. 2.
The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in a similar charge another person was given a lesser punishment. He also submits that punishment of dismissal and removal was disproportionate.
I have considered the pleadings and rival submissions and the admitted fact remains that all the three authorities had given a concurrent findings of fact and the opportunity was given to the petitioner including the second show cause and thus, it would not be appropriate to re-appreciate or reconsider the matter in the writ jurisdiction.
As regards the similar charges of another person and being awarded lesser punishment, it is well settled that one wrong does not make another wrong to be right and even the charge sheet has not been filed.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and also the order of punishment mainly on the ground that departmental proceeding was initiated against two constables having similar allegations but against one of the constable lesser punishment had been imposed by withholding two annual increment but in case of the appellant harsh punishment was imposed by dismissing him from service. This Court, on the last date after hearing the parties, directed the State counsel to seek instruction as to why such disproportionate and discriminate punishment has been awarded so far the appellant is concerned.
It appears that the present appellant along with one another constable, Arun Kumar Singh were on duty in Indore-Howrah Express, in which, one Md. Sakil Ahmad was traveling. It was alleged that the train halted at Koderma Railway Station and Md. Sakil Ahmad left the said train for taking drinking water from Platform No. 3. At that time, the appellant and another constable, Arun Kumar Singh caught hold him and handed over to Assistant Sub-Inspector. It was alleged that the money was taken by the police personal from the passenger and he was subjected to assault and cruelty. A departmental proceeding was initiated against both the delinquent police constables. On the charges having been proved punishment of withholding of two increments was imposed on constable, Arun Kumar Singh whereas the order of dismissal from service was passed against the appellant. It appears that the appellant took this point before the appellate authority regarding discrimination in the matter of awarding punishment. The appellate court rejected the said plea on the ground that it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to impose such punishment which he thinks fit.
Prima facie, we are of the view that the approach of the appellate authority is not in accordance with law. The Disciplinary authority may have discretion to impose punishment, if the charges are proved in the departmental proceeding but that discretion must be exercised judiciously and should not be arbitrary or discriminatory. For this reason alone, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service cannot be sustained in law. The appellate authority shall re-consider the matter and shall award appropriate punishment taking into consideration the gravity of the charges leveled against the appellant. Needless to say that the punishment should not be disproportionate to the charges leveled against him as also should not be discriminatory.
With the aforesaid direction and observation this appeal is disposed of.