MADHO SINGH DAULAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by Police constable Madhosingh. It is directed against the order of the District Superintendent of Police, Wardha, second respondent hereto, made on 8-5-1958, whereunder the petitioner is reduced in pay by Rs. 2/ p.m. for a period of two years beginning with the month of May 1958 and with a further order that this reduction will have the effect of postponinghis future increments, and the affirming orders in appeal and revision made on 29-7-58 and 17-1-59 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police respondents 3 nd 4 respectively.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner at the material time was posted as police constable in Wardha, a district place in the Vidarbha region. The petitioner was residing on the ground floor of a house. In the same house on the upper floor Shri Desai, Company Commandant of the Home Guards Wardha and one Bhagwansingh were residing. This house had no pucca latrine. A temporary latrine was therefore put up by the said Bhagwansingh and it was used by Bhagwansingh ad Shri Desai. They also did not raise any objection to the use of that latrine by the petitioner. It appears that on 9-2-1958, the petitioner was trying to prevent Shri Desai's children from using the latrine and thus there was some altercation in this respect between the petitioner nd Dashrath, peon of Shri Desai. Shri Desai who was nearabout, getting ready to go out intervenedand asked the petitioner as to what the matter was. The petitioner then lost his temper and replied "Have you no eyes, the latrine is full, it is smelling and who is going to clean it." Shri Desai told him that there was a sweeperess and that she would clean it. The petitioner then advanced towards Shri Desai in a threatening attitude and talked to him rudely in the first person singular. Shri Desai then went to the Police Lines and reported the matter to the Lines Officer. Later Shri Desai also reported the incident to the District Superintendent of Police, who asked the Station House Officer to enquire into the matter. The Station House Officer submitted his reort on 10-2-58 and the petitioner was suspended on that vry day by the District Superintendent of Police, Wardha. On 11-2-1958, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner and the charge the petitioner was called upon to answer was "rude and improper behaviour with Shri Desai, Company Commandant, Home Guards, Wardha, on 9-2-1958 over the use of common latrine in the house of one Bhandekar of Gandhi Nagar." A Departmental Inquiry was then hld by the District Superintendent of Police, Wardha. It was inter alia contended by the petitioner that the misbehaviour even if any being outside the employment, disciplinary acton could not be taken against him. The District Superintendent of Police held that there was no proper justification for the petitioner to behave as he did with Shri Desai, Company Commandant Home Guards. He further took the view that the default on the part of the petitioner was of a very serious nature. He negatived the contention of the petitoner that no diciplinary action could be taken against him for miscoduct outside the employment. The District Superintendent of Police therefore issued a notice on 17-4-1958 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the police force. The petitioner by his reply showed cause. The second respondent then made the following order on 8-5-1958 :

(3.) Mr. Ranade, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance, contends that the misconduct as found was committed by the petitioner not during the course of the employment but was open to the Police authorities to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner in that respect. We find it difficult to accept this contention. It is true that the misconduct in respect of which disciplinary action is taken against a servant must have reasonable relation to the nature of the service, but it need not necessarily arise in the course of employment. When a person accepts an employment by necessary implications he agrees to so conduct and behave himself as would not be inconsistent with the nature of his service. If he behaves and conducts himself in a manner which would be inconsistent with the nature of his service then that would affect or at any rate would be likely to affect the interests or good name of his employer. If and when it happens it is reasonable to hold tat it would entitle the employer to take such disciplinary action against his employee as the nature and degree of misconduct would require and law would permit. It is not that interests or good name of an employer is likely to be adversely affected only by an act of an employee during the course of an employment. We also do not find any provision either in the Police Act or Regulations to restrict recourse to taking disciplinary action against a police officer's action to acts done by him during the course of employment only