AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, a constable, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding along with four other constables. A joint inquiry was conducted pursuant
to a common charge-sheet dated 31.10.2009. The charges were found proved against all the delinquent employees but by order dated 25.6.2010,
the petitioner was punished by imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. By the same order another lady constable Ritu Vishwakarma
was punished by stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
Shri Ankit Saxena placed reliance on order-sheet dated High Court of Madhya Pradesh 26.11.2011 (Annexure R/1) and contended that
another delinquent employee Pramod Kumar was punished by imposition of punishment of reduction of onc increment and the intervening period
was treated as the period not spent on duty on the principle of ''no work no Pay''. By taking this court to the appeal memo dated 21.02.2012
(Annexure P/5), it is submitted that the allegation against the employees was that accused Ramvilas could run away from the police custody and for
this allegation, the main accused was Pramod Kumar. He was inflicted with minor punishment whereas the petitioner is subjected to a hostile
discrimination.
Shri Ankit Saxena submits that the competent authority while deciding the mercy appeal did not deal with the aspect of discrimination in the
matter of imposition of punishment on similarly situated delinquent employee. He submits that petitioner will resubmit a detailed appeal alongwith
relevant documents and the competent appellate authority may be directed to revisit the question of discrimination of punishment.
Shri Rahul Mishra, GA opposed the said contention and placed reliance on the return.
No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
A bare perusal of the charge-sheet shows that five constables were served with the charge-sheet based on singular allegation relating to
negligence of employees because of which accused Ramvilas could run away from police custody. The documents aforesaid show that for different
employees different punishment orders have been passed. The learned appellate authority has not considered the question of discrimination of
punishment.
Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to accept High Court of Madhya Pradesh the limited prayer of Shri Saxena. Accordingly, the
appellate order dated 3.07.2013 (Annexure P/6) is set aside. Petitioner is directed to file a fresh comprehensive appeal with relevant documents to
show that he was allegedly subjected to discrimination in the matter of imposition of punishment. If the appeal is preferred within three weeks from
today, the competent appellate authority will consider and decide it by speaking order within sixty days therefrom. It shall be the duty of the
appellate authority to address the point of discrimination in punishment. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner
within aforesaid time.
Petition is disposed of without expressing any view on merits of the matter.