Govind Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Justice B. P. Sharma

This intra-Court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the appellant calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.13297/2015 whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order of dismissal from service dated 29.03.2004, the appellate order dated 18.10.2004 and the order passed in mercy petition dated 25.04.2013 came to be dismissed.

The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department and was serving under the respondent-State. According to the appellant, he suffered physical assault in the year 2000 and thereafter developed certain medical complications. It was his case that during the period from 15.04.2002 to 23.10.2002, he remained under treatment on account of illness and, therefore, could not discharge his duties. After recovering from illness, he reported for duty on 02.11.2002. The appellant asserted that at the time of his joining, a communication was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sehore permitting him to resume duty and making reference to censure/admonition. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 21.06.2003 was issued alleging unauthorized absence from duty for a period of 197 days and other acts of misconduct. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found the charges substantially proved. After issuance of show-cause notice and consideration of the material available on record, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 29.03.2004 dismissing the appellant from service. The departmental appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 18.10.2004 and the mercy petition was also rejected on 25.04.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed W.P. No.13297/2015 which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.06.2025. Against the said order, present writ appeal has been preferred.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true nature of the order dated 02.11.2002. According to him, the said order amounted to imposition of punishment of censure/admonition in respect of the alleged absence and, therefore, initiation of a subsequent departmental enquiry on the same allegations amounted to double jeopardy. It was argued that once the period of absence had been regularized and punishment had already been imposed, the disciplinary authority became functus officio and could not reopen the matter by issuing a fresh charge-sheet. It was further submitted that the departmental authorities ignored the medical documents and fitness certificates which clearly demonstrated that the appellant remained absent due to genuine illness.

Reliance was placed on the decisions in K.R. Deb Vs. Collector of Central Excise (1971) 2 SCC 102, State of Assam Vs. J.N. Roy Biswas (1975) 1 SCC 234, Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178 a n d Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, to contend that the enquiry was vitiated in law and that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate. It was further argued that the appellant had rendered more than three decades of service and had also submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement which was not considered. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate these aspects and mechanically affirmed the orders passed by the departmental authorities.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State supported the order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in appeal. It was argued that appellant was a member of a disciplined force and remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for a prolonged period of 197 days. It was further submitted that the appellant was not a first-time guilty and his service record disclosed repeated instances of unauthorized absence and several penalties imposed earlier. Learned counsel contended that communication dated 02.11.2002 was merely a permission granted to the appellant to rejoin duty and could not be construed as an order passed after a disciplinary proceeding imposing any punishment. Therefore, the plea of double jeopardy was wholly misconceived. It was also submitted that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is extremely limited and once the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the findings were based upon evidence, neither the writ Court nor the appellate Court could re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate authority. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, Union of India Vs. SubrataNath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617 and Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507.

We have heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

At the outset, it deserves to be noted that learned Single Judge has examined the entire material in considerable detail and has dealt with every contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the communication dated 02.11.2002 could not be treated as an order imposing punishment and can only be considered after conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The record reveals that the said communication was merely addressed by Superintendent of Police to the concerned Reserve Inspector permitting the appellant to resume duties. The same was not preceded by issuance of any charge-sheet, departmental enquiry or adjudication of misconduct. Therefore, learned Single Judge rightly concluded that the said communication did not constitute a disciplinary order attracting the principles of double jeopardy. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the said conclusion.

The record reveals that the appellant had a long history of unauthorized absence. The findings noticed by learned Single Judge demonstrate that during his service career, he had been visited with penalties on several occasions, had been granted leave without pay repeatedly (19 occasions) and had earlier remained absent for a prolonged period of 338 days. The departmental enquiry also established that despite repeated opportunities and corrective measures, there was no improvement in his conduct. The charge relating to habitual unauthorized absence was thus founded on evidence available on record. It is well settled that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over departmental findings and cannot reassess the evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. No such circumstance is made out in the present case.

We are equally unable to accept the contention regarding non-consideration of medical evidence. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the medical documents produced by appellant and thereafter assessed the matter in the context of his overall service record. Merely because the appellant had produced certain medical papers would not ipso facto obliterate the findings recorded by disciplinary authority, particularly when the departmental proceedings disclosed a pattern of repeated unauthorized absence extending over several years. The disciplinary authority was entitled to evaluate the conduct of the appellant in its entirety and arrive at an appropriate conclusion. The learned Single Judge has found no procedural illegality, violation of natural justice or perversity in the enquiry proceedings and we find no reason to take a different view.

The contention regarding proportionality of punishment also does not persuade us to interfere. The appellant was serving in a disciplined force where maintenance of discipline, regular attendance and prompt obedience to duty are foundational requirements of service. Unauthorized absence of police personnel for an extended period cannot be viewed lightly. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that prolonged absence from duty by members of uniformed services constitutes a serious misconduct. In the present case, punishment has not been imposed merely for a solitary lapse but after taking into account the entire service record of the appellant demonstrating repeated acts of indiscipline. Viewed in that backdrop, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant judicial interference.

Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is a well-reasoned, comprehensive and legally sustainable order. Learned Single Judge has adequately dealt with all the contentions raised by the appellant and has rightly declined interference with the orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Consequently, writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The order dated 18.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13297/2015 (Govind Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others) is affirmed. No order as to costs.