Pawan Kumar Rai vs The Director General Of Police (Battalion) & Ors.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the 6th Battalion, Special Armed Force (SAF), Jabalpur, in the year 2015 and, during the course of his service, discharged his duties with sincerity and dedication. In November, 2018, a complaint came to be made against the petitioner, pursuant to which a charge-sheet was issued to him. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply thereto on 18.01.2019, categorically denying the allegations levelled against him and controverting the charges in their entirety. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of the enquiry, he was not afforded a fair and effective opportunity to defend himself, particularly an adequate opportunity of hearing and of cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, submitted his enquiry report on 23.05.2019. According to the petitioner, the said report failed to record any definite or cogent finding demonstrating as to in what manner and on the basis of what material the charges levelled against him were held to be proved.

Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 05.06.2019, specifically disputing the findings recorded therein and pointing out the procedural irregularities committed during the course of the departmental enquiry. Despite the defence raised by the petitioner, Respondent No.3 proceeded to pass an order dated 19.06.2019, whereby the petitioner was visited with the major penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be rejected by order dated 19.07.2019. The petitioner thereafter preferred a further appeal before Respondent No.1, specifically raising, inter alia, the violation of the provisions of the M.P. Police Regulations and contending that the grounds raised by him in defence had not been duly considered. The said appeal also came to be rejected by order dated 31.01.2020, which, according to the petitioner, is a brief and non-speaking order and does not disclose any meaningful consideration of the grounds raised by him. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 19.06.2019, 19.07.2019 and 31.01.2020, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service and his departmental remedies have been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition assailing the legality and validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the consequential orders passed against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has assailed the departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 10.12.2018. It is submitted that one of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry substantially corresponds to the accusation forming the subject matter of the criminal case instituted against him. It is also submitted that the said criminal prosecution arose out of the very same set of facts and circumstances, wherein the allegations were sought to be established on the basis of substantially the same evidence and witnesses as were relied upon in the departmental proceedings. However, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, the competent Criminal Court, by judgment dated 26.07.2021 passed in RCT No.100/2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur (M.P.), acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charge, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the accusation against him beyond reasonable doubt.

It is further submitted that, therefore, the very charge which formed the basis of the criminal prosecution and which could not be established before the competent Criminal Court has also been relied upon in the departmental proceedings for imposing the extreme penalty of removal from service cannot be said to be proved. According to learned counsel, when the departmental charge and the criminal accusation arise from the same transaction and are founded upon substantially the same set of facts, evidence and witnesses, the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner assumes considerable significance while examining the sustainability and proportionality of the punishment imposed upon him.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, and submits that the effect of an acquittal in a criminal prosecution, particularly where the departmental proceedings are founded upon the same set of facts and evidence, cannot be disregarded while examining the disciplinary action and the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee. It is, therefore, contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner is wholly disproportionate and warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that, having regard to the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner on the very accusation which also constitutes one of the charges in the departmental proceedings, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal (supra), the impugned punishment and the consequential orders deserve to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the remaining two charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet are, even otherwise, of a trivial and relatively minor nature and, by their very character and gravity, do not warrant imposition of the extreme penalty of removal from service. It is submitted that, despite the nature of the said charges, Respondent No.3, by the impugned order dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure-P/5), has imposed upon the petitioner the major penalty of removal from service, which is wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It is further submitted that the aforesaid aspect was specifically raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority; however, the appellate authority has failed to consider the nature and gravity of the charges as well as the proportionality of the punishment and has mechanically affirmed the order of removal. It is, therefore, submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner suffers from the vice of disproportionality and is contrary to the settled principles governing the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary matters. In such circumstances, the impugned orders, insofar as they impose and maintain the extreme penalty of removal from service, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner had developed a habitual tendency of misbehaving with his superior officers as well as his colleagues. It is submitted that the charge-sheet came to be issued when the petitioner was again found involved in an incident of misbehaviour with a lady nurse. According to learned counsel, the charges were framed after taking into consideration the various instances of misconduct attributed to the petitioner, which, when considered cumulatively, reflected a consistent pattern of indiscipline and misbehaviour on his part.

Learned counsel further submits that, while considering the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority also taken into consideration the past conduct and service record of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner had earlier been subjected to the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and had also been awarded ten minor punishments on different occasions. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order was not founded merely upon the charges involved in the present departmental enquiry, but was passed after taking into consideration the overall conduct and antecedents of the petitioner. It is submitted that, having regard to the repeated instances of misconduct and the past service record of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority found that the petitioner was liable to be removed from service. Accordingly, concurring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and upon consideration of the material available on record, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2019, whereby the petitioner was removed from service.

It is further submitted that the authorities, upon considering the overall conduct, behaviour and service antecedents of the petitioner, have found the penalty of removal from service to be commensurate with the nature of misconduct established against him. According to learned counsel, the punishment has been imposed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be said to be disproportionate so as to warrant interference by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters arising out of departmental proceedings is limited and this Court does not ordinarily sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is contended that, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own conclusion for that of the competent disciplinary authority, particularly when the findings are based upon the material available on record and no perversity or violation of the principles of natural justice is demonstrated. It is, therefore, submitted that no ground is made out warranting interference with the departmental proceedings or the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the departmental enquiry report, which has been placed on record along with the covering memo bearing No.15144 of 2026, it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer, upon consideration of the charges levelled against the petitioner, including the allegation of misbehaviour and use of criminal force against a lady nurse, as well as the instances of misbehaviour with his colleagues and superior officers on different occasions, has recorded a finding that the petitioner deserved to be dismissed from service. The disciplinary authority, upon consideration of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the material available on record, concurred with the said findings and accordingly passed the impugned order, whereby the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner.

From perusal of the charge-sheet (Annexure-P/1), it is apparent that three charges arising out of different incidents were levelled against the petitioner. In respect of one of the incidents, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner, which ultimately resulted in his acquittal by the competent Criminal Court. The charge forming the subject matter of the said criminal case is substantially identical to Charge No.2 levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and both arise out of the very same incident. The complainant in the said criminal case was also examined as a witness in support of the accusation. However, upon appreciation of the evidence, the competent Criminal Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the accusation against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charge. It is also relevant to note that, by judgment dated 06.09.2019, the petitioner was acquitted in another criminal case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, which case had also been instituted on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant.

As regards the remaining allegations contained in the charge-sheet, the same pertain to instances of alleged misbehaviour by the petitioner with his colleagues and superior officers. Even assuming the said allegations to have been established in the departmental proceedings, this Court finds that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the misconduct attributed to the petitioner, the same, particularly when considered in the backdrop of the acquittal in respect of the substantially identical charge arising out of the same incident, do not appear to be of such a grave nature as to warrant the extreme penalty of removal from service. The question, therefore, is not merely whether some misconduct was established against the petitioner, but whether the penalty of removal from service imposed upon him bears a reasonable proportion to the nature and gravity of the misconduct found proved. On an overall consideration of the charges and the circumstances emerging from the record, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner appears to be disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to him.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the disciplinary authority, while imposing the extreme penalty of removal from service, has failed to examine the proportionately of punishment for corresponding misconduct. The subsequent acquittal of the petitioner by the competent Criminal Court in respect of the substantially identical accusation arising out of the same incident is also a relevant circumstance which warranted consideration, particularly in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal (supra).

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Ram Lal (supra) in paragraph nos.12, 29 and 30 has held as under:

This Court is also required to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the charges, the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings, the acquittal of the petitioner in respect of the substantially identical criminal accusation and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate and requires reconsideration by the competent disciplinary authority. The principles governing proportionality of punishment, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha Domaji Bele Vs. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, 2026 Livelaw (SC)624, also warrant consideration while determining the appropriate punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Surekha (Supra) in paragraph no.111.2 has held as under:

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.06.2019, whereby the petitioner was removed from service, as well as the consequential appellate orders dated 19.07.2019 and 31.01.2020, are hereby set aside to the extent they relate to the quantum of punishment. The matter is remitted back to the competent disciplinary authority to reconsider the question of quantum of punishment other than the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service to be imposed upon the petitioner, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges found proved, the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner by the competent Criminal Court in respect of the substantially identical accusation, the petitioner's past service record and the principle of proportionality of punishment, as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Lal (supra) and Surekha Domaji Bele (supra).

The competent disciplinary authority shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after duly considering the aforesaid aspects, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner or on the correctness of the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. The findings recorded in the departmental enquiry shall remain undisturbed. The reconsideration by the competent disciplinary authority shall be confined to the question of quantum of punishment and shall be undertaken independently and in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.