High Court
Legal Reasoning
74-sr922no.2 in the Revision Application called theapplicants for personal hearing and passed theorder dated 10.10.2005.7.We do not find this to be a fit case whichwill warrant interference by this Tribunal. As hasbeen held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (1995)6 SCC 749.that no judicial interference is warranted indisciplinary cases, where the order is based onsome evidence, proper procedure has beenfollowed and the authority who has imposedpunishment is competent to do so. In the presentcase, we find that there was evidence against theapplicants, proper procedure was followed andrespondent no.4 is the competent authority whocan impose punishment of dismissal. Thequantum of punishment is not disproportionateconsidering the nature of charges against theapplicants. “8.We have gone through the authorities cited by learnedcounsel for the petitioner. On going through the same, it is clear andon which there is no dispute, that the factual matrix of those caseswere entirely different than the factual aspects of the present matter.In the case of Bhagat Ram (supra), it has been observed that thepunishment should be proportionate to the gravity of themisconduct. There cannot be any dispute on the said legalproposition. It is settled position of law that the punishment in thedepartmental enquiry should be proportionate to the proved 84-sr922misconduct. The decision in the said cases were based on thefactual matrix of those cases. In the judgment relied on by learnedAGP, the principles in respect of the departmental enquiry andinterference therein are discussed.9.In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner wasserving as a Police Constable and was deputed to take the prisonersto the Government Medical Hospital for medical check up. Thematerial on record goes to show that the prisoners were allowed tochange their clothes and have meals. The petitioner too took meals.Payment was made by the relative of the prisoners. The charge offacilitating the prisoners to escape from the custody of the policeconstables was proved. There is nothing to show that the findingsrecorded by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority wereperverse. Learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the materialbefore it and rightly observed that no interference was called for inthe punishment. With the proved misconduct, we find no merit inthe submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that thepunishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to theproved misconduct. Being a police official, it was the duty of thepetitioner to see that the prisoners do not escape from his custody.Needless to state that the police officials are deputed to take the
Arguments
4-sr922.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.6761 of 2019Dilip Vaijnath Thorat,Age : 43 years, Occ. Nil,r/o. Thoratwadi, Beed..PetitionerVs.1.The State of Maharashtra2.The Inspector General of Police,State of Maharashtra, Mumbai3.The Special Inspector Generalof Police, Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad4.The Superintendent of Police,Beed..Respondents----Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for petitionerMr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondents---- CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 17, 2025 ORDER :-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGPfor the respondents - State, at length. We have perused the papers onrecord.2.The petitioner, who was in the service of Police Departmentof State of Maharashtra, at the relevant time, i.e. 11.11.2003, was 24-sr922working as a Police Constable and was attached to the PoliceHeadquarters, at Beed. The petitioner along with two other policeconstables were deputed to take two prisoners to the GovernmentHospital, for medical examination. When the petitioner and hiscolleagues had taken the prisoners to the Government Hospital, boththe prisoners escaped from their custody. One of the colleagues ofthe petitioner lodged a report in that regard with Beed City PoliceStation and crime came to be registered for the offence punishableunder Section 224 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.3.A departmental enquiry was initiated against thepetitioner with the charge that he facilitated the prisoners to escapefrom his custody. The charge was served on the petitioner. AnEnquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry was conducted. The EnquiryOfficer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. Thedisciplinary Authority served the copy of enquiry report on thepetitioner along with the show-cause notice. The petitioner hadresponded the show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority passedthe order of dismissal from service against the petitioner, by orderdated 31.01.2005. 34-sr9224.The petitioner filed an appeal against the order ofdismissal of the petitioner from service, before the appellateauthority. The appellate authority considered the appeal anddismissed the same on 30.04.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed aRevision before the competent authority, which came to bedismissed on 10.10.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner approachedlearned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing OriginalApplication No.648 of 2006, which came to be dismissed byjudgment and order dated 11.12.2014. Eventually, the petitionerapproached this Court, challenging the order passed by learnedTribunal.5.It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did notconsider the material available before them and reached to theincorrect finding. He further submits that the punishment fromdismissal from services is disproportionate to the proved charge. Hesubmits that the charge did not warrant highest punishment. Hesubmits that the punishment may be reduced to lesser punishmentof compulsory retirement. In support of his contentions, he relied onthe following judgments:- 44-sr922(i)Bombay High Court judgment in the case ofUdaynath Tirkey s/o. Kisun Tirkey Vs. The DirectorGeneral, Central Industrial Security Force (WritPetition No.6859 of 2019 decided on 14.01.2022);(ii)Judgment of Allahabad High Court in the caseof Harish Chandra Tewari Vs. The State of U.P.,decided on 15.12.2003;(iii)Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradeshand ors., (1983)2 SCC 4426.The petition is opposed by learned AGP for therespondents - State. He submits that all the authorities haveconsidered the matter and reached to its proper conclusion. Hesubmits that the principles of natural justice were followed and thepunishment of dismissal from service is based on the provedmisconduct. He submits that the scope to interfere in thedepartmental enquiry matter is very limited. He submits that thepetition may be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he relies onthe the judgment in the case of Union of India and ors. Vs.Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998.7.After hearing both sides and perusal of the papers onrecord, it is clear that there is no violation of the principles of naturaljustice in the departmental enquiry. Even, it is not the case oflearned counsel for the petitioner that there was breach of principles 54-sr922of natural justice in the matter. During course of the departmentalenquiry, the charge was served on the petitioner. The PresentingOfficer had examined the witnesses and the Enquiry Officer preparedhis report on the basis of the material placed before him, whichincluded the evidence of the witnesses. One of the witnesses, asseen from the material available on record, was the Doctor from theGovernment Hospital, wherein the two prisoners were taken formedical check up. Learned Tribunal considered all the aspects of thematter. It would not out of place to reproduce the relevantobservations from the impugned judgment passed by learnedTribunal. The same are from paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, which readthus:-“5.We find that statement of DR. R.H.Giri is atpage-57 of the paper book. He is the doctor whohad examined the prisoners in the hospital. Theapplicants have objected to the fact that thedoctor remembered their names, buckle numbersor the names of the prisoners. In fact, it is notexpected a doctor should remember the names ofall persons who are examined by him. He mustonly rely on the records maintained by him. Wedo not accept the contention of the applicantsthat the fact the remembered their names wouldvitiate his testimony. He had clearly stated that atthe time of examination, the prisoners were not inprison uniform but wearing ordinary clothes.This fact is important as the prisoners escapes 64-sr922were facilitated by the fact that they werewearing ordinary clothes. There is nothing onrecord to suggest that Dr. Giri did not maintainand rely on his records to recall names ofprisoners and their escorts. Similarly, we findthat the applicants had cross-examined all thewitnesses as is evident from the report of EnquiryOfficer. To claim that the witnesses were notexamined in their presence is not correct. Thewitnesses had affirmed the statements given bythem in the preliminary enquiry were correct,during the course of D.E. The applicants have notmentioned which documents were not supplied tothem. The applicants have claimed that theywere not heard before the order dated 31.1.2005was passed. This claim of the applicants is falseas the order dated 31.1.2005 clearly mantionsthat the applicants were given show cause noticeon 17.11.2004 and were given opportunity ofpersonal hearing on 29.1.2005. After consideringthe report of the Enquiry Officer, and the fact thatall the charges were proved against the applicant,punishment of dismissal from service wasimposed by order dated 31.1.2005. We do notfind the claim of the applicants that the order isperverse as it is based on no evidence to becorrect. In fact, the Enquiry Officer has given anexhaustive report and held that all the chargeswere proved. Respondent no.4 accepted thereport of the Enquiry Officer and after givingopportunity to the applicants, passed theimpugned order.6.The appellate authority has passed theorder in appeal dated 30.4.2005 after consideringall the material on record and after givingopportunity for personal hearing. The respondent
Decision
94-sr922prisoners from jail to the Court or hospital; and to see that they arebrought back to the jail. We do not see that the punishment ofdismissal from service imposed against the petitioner by thecompetent authority, is disproportionate to the proved misconduct ofthe petitioner. Considering the settled principles in respect of thematters related to departmental enquiry, we find no merit in thecase. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:- The Writ Petition is dismissed.[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.][R.G. AVACHAT, J.] KBP