Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the punishment of removal from service imposed on a Class IV employee (Peon) for being drunk and arriving late on VIP driving duty resulted in the Judge missing his train, a Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf,* JJ., upheld the findings of misconduct arrived at in the departmental enquiry, but, set aside the punishment of removal from service and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the penalty in light of the proved misconduct.
In the instant matter, the petitioner was employed as a Class IV employee (Peon) in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal. He was initially appointed as a Driver in the contingency establishment and was later placed on a regular pay scale from 04-01-2004. The petitioner was assigned VIP duty from 18-11-2006 to 20-11-2006, specifically to drive a Judge of the Allahabad High Court from the VIP Guest House to the Railway Station in the early hours of 19-11-2006. The petitioner failed to reach the VIP Guest House on time, arriving around 2:15 AM, and as a result, the Judge missed his scheduled train to Allahabad.
It was alleged that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time. A written complaint was submitted by Judge to the Assistant Protocol Officer (APO), alleging both delay and intoxication.
A departmental enquiry was initiated, and upon conclusion, the Disciplinary Authority (District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal) passed an order dated 24-02-2007 removing the petitioner from service under Rule 10 (viii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Aggrieved by the impugned order of removal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the same.
The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated as no medical examination was conducted to substantiate the allegation of intoxication. It was asserted that no witness categorically testified to him being under the influence of alcohol during duty. It was argued that the Judge’s complaint, being uncorroborated, could not form the sole basis for such a severe punishment. The petitioner explained the delay in reaching the VIP Guest House by stating that his bicycle tyre had punctured en route which was supported by a defence witness, a Home Guard Sainik posted at the Judges Enclave. It was lastly contended that the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct.
However, the respondents contended that the charges were duly proved through cogent and reliable evidence. It was contended that the written complaint of the Judge was submitted in the presence of the APO and could not be brushed aside. It was argued that the APO and other departmental witnesses supported the charge of delay and misconduct. It was argued that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly, following due process and principles of natural justice and the findings of the Inquiry Officer was based on evidence, and the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to reappreciating such findings.
The Court carefully examined the evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry and observed that the charge of delay was clearly established as the petitioner arrived late at the Guest House, causing the Judge to miss his train. The Court noted that the witnesses including Railway Magistrate and APO corroborated the complaint of delay and stated that the petitioner did not appear to be in a normal condition.
The Court noted that the complaint of intoxication, although supported by the Judge’s written note, but the same was not backed by medical examination or direct evidence from an expert or neutral party. The Court further noted that the defence of a punctured bicycle tyre, though supported by a witness, did not adequately mitigate the misconduct of dereliction of duty on an important assignment.
Despite upholding the findings of misconduct, the Court found that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charge proved and held that the delinquent’s conduct, while blameworthy, did not warrant removal from service, especially in the absence of conclusive proof of intoxication.
“The punishment of removal from the service is in outrages defines of logic and is shocking and if the punishment imposes by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscious of the Court, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed…”
The Court reiterated that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot sit in appeal over findings of fact unless there is a clear violation of rules or principles of natural justice. The Court further stated that even when misconduct is proved, the punishment must not be so harsh as to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and if it shocks the conscience of the Court, interference is warranted.
“This court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as appellate authority. This court can interfere only if statutory rules or regulations are found to be violated. When the law permits the competent authority to take action against the delinquent person for his misconduct, no interference in the finding is called for.”
Accordingly, while upholding the finding of misconduct, the Court set aside the punishment of removal and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment. The Court directed that this exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that the petitioner is to be reinstated with immediate effect but without back wages, applying the principle of “no work no pay.”
[Vijay Singh Bhadauriya v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No. 33834 of 2021, Decided on 06-05-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vinay Saraf
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Shailendra Pandey, Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaturved, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Vivek Sharma, Deputy A.G, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Shri Brijesh Nath Misra, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3
Buy Constitution of India HERE
