Court : Supreme Court
Brief : wrongful detention of a person under s. 13 of Lunacy Act - police constable charged him of asault in insane state of mind - after inquiry constable dismissed from service - supreme court reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement.
Citation : Damanuj Pande v. State of MP; Civil Appeal No 3406/2009
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu,J.
Leave granted.
1)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 2006
dated 22.11.2006. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench
dismissed the writ appeal, stating that the punishment of removal from
service of the appellant cannot on the facts and circumstances of the case
shocks the conscience of the Court.
2)The facts leading to this Special Leave Petition are: the appellant was
appointed as a Constable in the service of M.P. Police on 1.11.1967 and
was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable. On the
1
relevant date i.e. 25.9.1991 while discharging his duties as Incharge,
Outpost, Kolar Dam, Birpur appellant apprehended one Laxmi Narain,
Dozer Operator of Kolar Dam and registered a complaint against him
under Section 13 of the Lunacy Act. In the complaint filed, appellant had
stated that Laxmi Narain in an insane state of mind assaulted him and
caused injuries. On the other hand, son of Laxmi Narain filed a complaint
and requested the authorities to conduct inquiry against the appellant.
Inquiry was conducted and consequent thereto, a charge sheet was issued
to the appellant and he was kept under suspension pending domestic
enquiry proceedings. The appellant in his reply had denied all the
charges. In the Departmental Inquiry conducted by Superintendent of
Police, Sehore on 7.5.1992, he has held the appellant guilty of the said
charges and was removed from government services affirming that the
appellant had done a very heinous act by detaining a public servant in
police post without any reason, violating his fundamental rights.
Appellant went before the High Court contending that no departmental
inquiry was warranted in such matter and the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate. The High Court dismissed the petition
confirming the decision of the disciplinary authority. The appellant then
went in appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that
appellant being a Head Constable has apprehended Laxmi Narain and
2
registered him under the Lunacy Act, although he was not a Lunatic,
therefore, the punishment of removal from service of the appellant cannot
on these facts be held to be one which shocks the conscience of the
Court.
3)We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4)Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant
could not be held to have misused his position as Head Constable and not
acted in good faith. He would also contend that the punishment awarded
to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate and excessive. Learned
Counsel would draw our attention to the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484, wherein this court held that:
"A review of the above legal position would establish that the
disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority,
being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider
the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are
invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment
keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial
review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on
penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
3
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would
appropriately mould the relief, either directing the
disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty
imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent
reasons in support thereof."
5)In the case of Commr of Police v. Syed Hussain, (2006) 3 SCC 173, this
Court observed that, it is one thing to say that order passed by the
statutory authority is wholly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution and thus liable to be set aside, but it is another thing to
say that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by such authority should
not ordinarily be interfered with by a superior court while exercising its
power of judicial review unless one or the other ground upon which and
on the basis whereof the power of judicial review can be exercised,
exists. It is, therefore, beyond any doubt or dispute that the doctrine of
proportionality has to be applied in appropriate case as the depth of
judicial review will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
6)Admittedly, it is for the disciplinary authority or the administrative
authority to decide the quantum of punishment in a case of misconduct
and the role of the Court is only secondary. But in view of the gravity of
the misconduct, namely, the appellant having apprehended Laxmi Narain
4
and registering him under section 13 of the Lunacy Act, where the
disciplinary authority held appellant guilty for detaining a public servant
in police post without any reason and removed him from government
services, the interference with the imposition of punishment is necessary.
7)In the present matter the appellant, while discharging his duties
apprehended Laxmi Narain and registered him under Lunacy Act without
any sufficient reasons. This act of his had indisputably caused harassment
to Laxmi Narain and was detrimental to the image of police department,
but the same was also not grave enough to punish him with removal from
services. The appellant as a head constable was bestowed with official
duties and while discharging them he went outside its purview, which
definitely warrants that his services must be terminated, but as a warning
to others and not as a vengeance.
8)While considering the power to interfere with the order of punishment,
this Court in the case of Rangaswami v. State of T.N., AIR 1989 SC
1137, held that this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution, is empowered to alter or interfere with the
penalty.
9)Accordingly, the punishment of appellant of dismissal from services as
imposed by the disciplinary authority is substituted to one of compulsory
retirement from the date of his dismissal from services i.e. 7.5.1992.
5
10)In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court is partly set aside. No order as
to costs.
.......................................J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
.......................................J.
[ H.L. DATTU ]
New Delhi,
May 08, 2009.
