GIRISH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226/ 227 of Constitution of India assailing order of penalty of withholding of one annual increment cumulatively and also the order of rejection of appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said penalty order. Learned counsel for petitioner has restricted his argument to the following two grounds:

(2.) Taking the first contention, it is seen that the sole charge leveled against the petitioner was in respect of gross negligence in handling SLR Riffle leading to the weapon being fired. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out as to how and in what manner the negligence alleged in charge No. 1 is not a misconduct. The petitioner who was a constable and a member of a disciplined force is expected to handle a fire arm which is dangerous weapon with utmost care and caution. Any negligence in handling a fire arm can lead to a serious incident causing loss of life or property, besides eroding faith of public in the disciplined character of the armed force which can be highly deleterious to the moral of entire armed force. Thus this court is not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and rejects the same and holds that charge No. 1 as pointed out in the charge sheet is a misconduct.

(3.) As regards ground No. 2, a perusal of Regulation 226 indicates that the said provision lays down guidelines to be observed in determining the quantum of penalty to be imposed by the competent authority in respect of different kinds of misconduct. Relevant clause (vi) of Regulation 226 is reproduced below for convenience:-