MASTER SURESH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of dismissal of the appellant passed by the original authority i.e., the third respondent, as confirmed by the respondents 2 and 1, who are the appellate and revisional authorities, and subsequently by a learned single Judge of this Court, is the subject matter in this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant joined the service of Central Reserve Police Force as a Constable/Driver in the year 1986 and he was in charge of TATA Bus bearing Registration No.DILP-6034, when it was engaged for Government duty on 31.01.1995 and subsequently had met with an accident, which was not brought to the notice of the higher-ups by the appellant, in order to cover up the matter. Based on the said incident, he was placed under suspension in February, 1995, for the alleged misconduct. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued to him on 11.03.1995, framing certain charges. Appellant submitted explanation to the charges and subsequently an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.07.1995, proving the appellant guilty of the charges. Based on the said report, the appellant was dismissed from service on 06.11.1995. Against the said order of dismissal, the appellant filed an appeal before the second respondent and the said appeal was also dismissed on 29.12.1996. Further, the appellate order was taken in revision before the first respondent and the said revision also came to be dismissed on 18.11.1997, against which Writ Petition was filed and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, this Writ Appeal is filed.

(3.) ON a perusal of the material available on record and on consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, what touches our conscience is, that, though the charges were held proved by the Enquiry Officer against the appellant and subsequently confirmed by the appellate authorities and also the learned single Judge, the punishment of dismissal of the appellant from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, as they 1 and 2 being with reference to the accident and the factum of specific instruction given by the Inspector D.M. Magade, who was the only officer available in the vehicle at the material point of time, which was disobeyed by the appellant, and the charges 3 and 4 relating to misbehaviour and tampering with the documents, such as card diary, vehicle incident form etc. Also, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Inspector was assaulted by the appellant. However, the statements of witnesses taken during the enquiry proceedings, indicating the misconduct attributed against the appellant, cannot be brushed aside, for which appropriate punishment has to be awarded, but not the maximum punishment, as ordered by the respondents.