LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Sunday, February 17, 2013

reinstated in service- The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of codelinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. We have already indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re-instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.


Page 1
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1334   OF  2013
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2070 of 2012]
Rajendra Yadav .. Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. & Others .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant, a Police Constable, while he was working in the
police station Rahatgarh, District Sagar along with A.S.I. Lakhan
Tiwari and Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Tiwari stated to have
received  an  amount  of  Rs.3,000  for  not  implicating  certain
persons  involved  in  Crime  No.  4  of  2002  charged  under
Sections 341, 294, 323, 506(B), 34 IPC.  A complaint to that
effect was filed by one Kundan Rajak, a resident of VillagePage 2
2
Sothia, PS Rahatgarh.  Acting on that complaint, the appellant
was charge-sheeted, along with two others, vide proceedings
dated 6.5.2002 by the Superintendant of Police, Sagar. The
following are the charges levelled against the appellant:
(1)    He  demonstrated  gross  negligence  and  lack  of
interest in discharge of his duty by not implicating all
the persons involved in the crime.
(2)    He demonstrated misconduct by accepting Rs.3,000
from the complainant Kundan Rajak for lodging a report
in the police station.
3. Appellant filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet by his
letter dated NIL and denied all the allegations.
4. A detailed inquiry was conducted through the Additional
Superintendant of Police, Sagar against the appellant and other
two  persons  –  A.S.I.  Lakhan  Tiwari  and  H.C.  Jagdish  Prasad
Yadav.   During the course of the inquiry, the charge against
Lakhan Tiwari was found not proved, but his role was found to
be doubtful.  So  far as appellant Rajendra Prasad Yadav is
concerned, it was held that one of the charges could not be
proved  for  want  of  evidence.   The  inquiry  report  datedPage 3
3
8.9.2004,  so  far  as  the  appellant  is  concerned,  states  as
follows:
“Against  the  delinquent  No.  2,  H.C.  1104
Rajendra Prasad, one of the charges imputed could not
be proved for want of evidence.  During the course of
departmental inquiry, the inquiry has noted that the
charge No. 2 was also not proved from the statement of
prosecution witness and documents of the prosecution
but one cannot deny the participation of the delinquent
and his tacit approval.”
5. The  Superintendant  of  Police,  Sagar,  however,  vide  his
proceedings dated 26.3.2004, disagreed with the remarks of
the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge No. 2 as against the
appellant  was  found  to  be  proved.   Consequently,  a
supplementary charge-sheet was also given to the appellant.
Later, a final order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General
of Police, Sagar stating as follows:
“With respect to the delinquent HC No. 1104 Rajendra
Yadav, the Inquiry Officer has stated vide his said letter
that the delinquent HC was present in the police station
during the report of the Crime No. 4/02.  As per the
evidence,  the  money  was  demanded  by  Ct.  Arjun
Pathak.   The report has been  recorded by HC 1104
Rajendra Yadav whereas Rs.3,000/- was paid to Const.Page 4
4
Arjun  Pathak.   Therefore,  with  regard  to  receiving
money, the participation of HC Rajendra Yadav and his
tacit approval are proved with respect to the charge No.
2.  At the same time, he could not exercise his control
over  his  subordinate.  The  money  was  demanded  by
Arjun Pathak and upon receipt of the money by Arjun
Pathak,  HC  1104  Rajendra  Yadav  lodged  the  report.
Therefore, I am in disagreement with the view of the
Inquiry  Officer  given  in  the  inquiry  report  of  the
department  inquiry  that  the  charge  is  not  proved
against the delinquent HC Rajendra Prasad Yadav.   As
per  the  remark  of  the  Inquiry  Officer,  the  above
mentioned charge No. 2 imputed against HC No. 1104
Rajendra Prasad is found to be proved.”
6. On  the  basis  of  the  above  finding,  Lakhan  Tiwari  was
demoted  for  three  years  from  the  post  of  A.S.I.  to  Head
Constable.  But the appellant and Jagdish Prasad Tiwari were
dismissed from service.
7. Aggrieved  by  the  same,  appellant  preferred  an  appeal
before the Inspector General of Police (appellate authority), who
dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 9.12.2004.
8. Appellant  then  filed a  Writ Petition  No.  10696  of  2007
before  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Jabalpur  Bench,Page 5
5
which was dismissed by the learned single Judge by his order
dated 3.5.2007, against which a Writ Appeal No. 11 of 2007 was
also preferred, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench
vide its impugned judgment dated 6.9.2011.
9. Mr.  Rakesh  Khanna,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
appellant,  submitted  that  since  both  the  charges  levelled
against the appellant were not proved fully, the respondent
Department  was  not  justified  in  dismissing  him  from  the
service, which is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the
offence.  Further, it was pointed out that there is nothing on the
record to show that the appellant had demanded or accepted
the alleged sum of Rs.3,000 and it was proved in the inquiry
that it was Constable  Arjun  Pathak who  had demanded the
above mentioned amount and he was, even though, inflicted
with  the  punishment  of  compulsory  retirement  was,  later,
reinstated by imposing punishment of reduction of increment
with cumulative effect for one year.  The inquiry has clearly
established that it was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and
accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant, but he
has been given a lighter punishment while the appellant was
imposed a harsher punishment, which is clearly arbitrary andPage 6
6
discriminatory.  Learned counsel placed considerable reliance
on the judgment of this Court in  Anand Regional Coop.  Oil
Seedsgrowers’ Union Ltd. V. Shaileshkumr Harshadbhai
Shah (2006)  6  SCC  548  and  claimed  parity,  if  not  fully
exonerated.  
10. Shri  Arjun  Garg,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
respondent State, submitted that there is no illegality in the
views expressed by the learned single Judge and the Division
Bench calling for any interference.   Further, it was pointed out
that since the appellant, being a member of a disciplined force,
should  not  have  involved  in  such  an  incident  and  his  tacit
approval could not be brushed aside because it had taken place
in his presence.
11. We have gone through the inquiry report placed before us
in respect of the appellant as well as Constable Arjun Pathak.
The inquiry clearly reveals the role of Arjun Pathak.  It was Arjun
Pathak who had demanded and received the money, though the
tacit approval of the appellant was proved in the inquiry.  The
charge levelled against Arjun Pathak was more serious than the
one charged against the appellant.  Both appellants and otherPage 7
7
two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same
incident.  After having found that Arjun Pathak had a more
serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and
received the money, he was inflicted comparatively a lighter
punishment.  At the same time, appellant who had played a
passive role was inflicted with a more serious punishment of
dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained.
 
12. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally
placed; even among persons who are found guilty.  The persons
who  have  been  found  guilty  can  also  claim  equality  of
treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing
punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident.
Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when
punishment  is  being  imposed.   Punishment  should  not  be
disproportionate  while  comparing  the  involvement  of  codelinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident.
The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is
disproportionate,  i.e.,  lesser  punishment for  serious offences
and stringent punishment for lesser offences.
Page 8
8
13. The  principle  stated  above  is  seen  applied  in  few
judgments of this Court.  The earliest one is Director General
of  Police  and  Others  v.  G.  Dasayan (1998)  2  SCC  407,
wherein one Dasayan, a Police Constable, along with two other
constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same
acts of misconduct.  The Disciplinary Authority exonerated two
other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from
service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on Head
Constable.   This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice,
substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the
order  of  dismissal  from  service  on  Dasayan,  applying  the
principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents.  This
Court  held  that  it  may,  otherwise,  violate  Article  14  of  the
Constitution of India.  In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah
case  (supra),  the  workman  was  dismissed  from  service  for
proved  misconduct.   However,  few  other  workmen,  against
whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of
the  benefit  of  voluntary  retirement  scheme.   In  such
circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be
treated  on  the  same  footing  and  be  given  the  benefit  ofPage 9
9
voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the
others were given the benefit.
14. We are of the view the principle laid down in the above
mentioned  judgments  also  would  apply  to  the  facts  of  the
present case.  We have already indicated that the action of the
Disciplinary  Authority  imposing  a  comparatively  lighter
punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same
time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted
in  law,  since  they  were  all  involved  in  the  same  incident.
Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting
aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the
appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith.
Appellant is, therefore, to be re-instated from the date on which
Arjun  Pathak  was  re-instated  and  be  given  all  consequent
benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak.  Ordered accordingly.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
............................................J.
(K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
............................................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)Page 10
10
New Delhi,
February 13, 2013