Ramesh Chand Mewade vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh & Another

R.S. Jha, J

This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biora) and

order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby a punishment of dismissal from service has been

imposed upon the petitioner and the same has been affirmed in appeal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the enquiry, the petitioner has admitted his guilt and, therefore, the petitioner does not

assail the order passed by the authorities on the factual aspect. It is submitted that the petition is confined to the quantum of punishment.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had given a false statement and affidavit before the authorities and on being served

with a charge-sheet, has admitted his guilt. It is submitted that in such circumstances, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has rendered 20

years of unblemished service and is a Class-IV employee, the punishment of dismissal from service is extremely harsh and disproportionate to the

misconduct in respect of which the authorities have proceeded against the petitioner. It is submitted that the punishment is so disproportionate to the

misconduct that it shocks the conscience of a reasonable man and, therefore, is hit by the doctrine of proportionately. It is submitted that in such

circumstances the impugned order passed by the authorities dismissing the petitioner from service be set aside and a lesser minor penalty be imposed

upon the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of M. A. Khalsa vs. Union of India and

others, 1988 Supp Supreme Court Cases 436; Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 2 SCC 74 8and R. R. Parekh vs. High

Court of Gujarat and another, (2016) 14 SCC 1, to submit that in the circumstances a lenient view may be taken and the punishment imposed upon the

petitioner being highly disproportionate, be reduced to compulsory retirement.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents per contra submits that the facts of the case are not as simple as has been stated by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that one Shri Vijay Vishwakarma, who is also serving in the department, was served with a charge-sheet and

was being subjected to a departmental enquiry. It is submitted that in the said enquiry, with a view to support and assist the said Shri Vijay

Vishwakarma, the petitioner gave a false statement to the effect that the petitioner had rented out a part of his accommodation to Shri Vijay

Vishwakarma from August, 2005 to February, 2006 for a rent of Rs.600/- but Shri Vijay Vishwakarma rarely occupied the accommodation. The said

statement was given by the petitioner in support of the defence taken by Shri Vijay Vishwakarma in the departmental enquiry that he had obtained a

room on rent from the petitioner. It is stated that in the said enquiry the petitioner was asked to submit a detailed affidavit in support of his statement

with details of the amount received by him as rent and the receipts thereof, whereupon the petitioner submitted an affidavit before the authorities

reiterating his statement in the departmental enquiry against Shri Vijay Vishwakarma.

The learned counsel for the respondents informs that in view of the statement of the petitioner and the affidavit given by him, a fact finding enquiry

was conducted by the authorities, as the statement of the petitioner, if true, would have materially affected the result of the departmental enquiry

against Shri Vijay Vishwakarma. It is brought on record that, on enquiry, as many as five witnesses, who are all employees of the Court and

neighbours of the petitioner, gave a statement against the petitioner's statement clearly indicating that the petitioner had made a false statement and

submitted a false affidavit before the authorities in the departmental enquiry against Shri Vijay Vishwakarma.

In view of the facts that were brought on record in the departmental enquiry against Shri Vijay Vishwakarma, the petitioner was initially issued a

show cause notice and, thereafter, a charge-sheet was served upon him, whereupon the petitioner submitted an application and response on 24. 3.2007

accepting his guilt. The petitioner again gave an application on 27.4.2007 in the departmental enquiry initiated against him stating that he accepted the

enquiry report wherein the petitioner's statement and affidavit was found to be false. It is stated that the petitioner also filed an application before the

authorities stating that as he had accepted his guilt and has rendered 20 years of unblemished service, therefore, he may not be subjected to a major

punishment but may be let-off by imposing a minor penalty.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the petitioner deliberately made a

false statement in the departmental enquiry initiated against one Shri Vijay Vishwakarma with a view to influence the result of the same and with a

view to aid and abet Shri Vijay Vishwakarma in the commission of an act of indiscipline. It is also apparent that the statement made by the petitioner

and the affidavit given by him that his act was not an innocent mistake but was a deliberate and willful attempt on his part to help Shri Vijay

Vishwakarma and try and secure a verdict of innocence in his favour. The facts on record also reveal that the petitioner did not own up to his mistake

in the first instance itself but went on to file a false affidavit in support of his incorrect statement and it is only when an enquiry was conducted, a

charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him that the petitioner filed an application admitting and

accepting his guilt. The facts on record also indicate that the said acceptance of guilt on the part of the petitioner was also not a voluntary act but was

a well thought-of strategy for being let-off with a minor punishment which was influenced by the direct statement and evidence of the witnesses

against him recorded in the fact finding enquiry.

This Court has considered the decisions relied upon by the petitioner as well as considered several decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue in

the cases of Ram Autar Singh vs. State Public Service Tribunal and others, (1998) 9 SCC 66;6 Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial

Bank and others vs. P. C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364; Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 8;4

Union of India and othersvs. Datta Linga Toshatwad, (2005) 13 SCC 709;U ttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Pal, (2006) 8

SCC 108; Union of India vs. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388; Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia, (2007) 7 SCC 257; State of Tripura vs.

Naresh Chandra Das, (2007) 15 SCC 759;S tate of Meghalaya vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 58;0 Ramvir Singh v. Union of India

(2009) 3 SCC 97; Ramanuj Pandey vs. State of M.P., (2009) 7 SCC 248; Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India (2009) 17 SCC 481;C haranjit Lamba vs.

Army Southern Command (2010) 11 SCC 314; State of U.P. vs. J.P. Saraswat, (2011) 4 SCC 545; Commandant, 22nd Battalion, Central Reserve

Police Force, Shrinagar, c/o 56/APO and others vs. Surinder Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 24;4 State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. Ch. Gandhi, (2013)

5 SCC 111; S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India and others, (2013) 6 SCC 602; Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. J.

Hussain, (2013) 10 SCC 106; Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and another vs. Rajender Singh, (2013)

12 SCC 372; Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, (2015) 16 SCC 41;5 Union of India v. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71;

and Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Limited and another vs. K. Hanumanta Rao and another (2017) 2 SCC 528.

From a perusal of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is clear that the High Court cannot substitute its opinion in

respect of punishment in place of that of a Disciplinary Authority or the Departmental Authority, even if it feels that it is disproportionate or harsh but

can do so only in those cases where it finds that the punishment is so grossly disproportionate to the misconduct that it shocks the conscience of the

Court, that too, by clearly recording its reasons for coming to the conclusion that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and not just by saying

so. It has also been held that while arriving at the decision, the High Court must keep in mind the nature of the establishment in which the employee is

working, the kind of duties that are being discharged by him and whether the work of the establishment requires the employee to maintain the

standards of utmost integrity, honesty, devotion, diligence and mandates and that he should not do anything that could tarnish the image of the office or

establishment and reduce its authority. Taking the aforesaid principles and factors into consideration, in some cases, overstaying of leave has been

held sufficient to attract the severest punishment while in others, severe punishment has been reduced for graver misconducts. The Supreme Court

has also held that in cases where the High Court comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed upon an employee is shockingly

disproportionate and suffers from Wednesbury unreasonableness, the proper course to be adopted by the Courts is to remit the matter back to the

competent authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter except in certain exceptional circumstances. The law laid down by the Supreme Court

and the principles laid down therein have to be applied to each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the

conclusion would vary from case to case.

In the instant case, the petitioner is working in the establishment of the District Judge. It is an established fact that every employee working in the

establishment of the District Judge or for that matter in any manner connected with the judiciary, has to exhibit exemplary conduct and behaviour

which does not tarnish the image of the judiciary and on the contrary inspires confidence in the public that the judicial system functions honestly and

each member involved in the justice delivery system, acts and behaves honestly. Apparently, the deliberate act on the part of the petitioner of giving a

false statement and compounding the same by giving an affidavit has not just resulted in vitiating the departmental proceedings initiated against Shri

Vijay Vishwakarma but has also tarnished the image of the judiciary. The act of the petitioner is against the high standards of integrity, honesty,

devotion and diligence that was required of him.

The facts indicate that this deliberate act and false statement supported by an affidavit given by the petitioner has compelled the competent

authority and the appellate authority to impose a punishment of dismissal from service and affirming the same. There is nothing on record to indicate

that the decision of the competent authority or the appellate authority was influenced by some extraneous consideration or is based on evidence that is

not available on record. On the contrary, the record indicates that the authorities have taken a decision on the basis of the facts and documents on

record, keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct of the petitioner.

In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is neither shockingly harsh or

disproportionate and is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner, which even otherwise has been admitted.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is, accordingly, dismissed.