-^ ^ ?.\°ol visr -'^ ^ 1 ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITIONNO. S.S37 /2005 PETITIONER •^^"'; .cn^-, •/ f^ ?w .' ^^ h /y^ ^ y RESPONDENTS Latel Rani Yadav, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri Dasru Rara Yadava, resident of vill Takhatpur, Tah & Post Takhatpur, Near Thakurdeo Mandir, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, Department of Home Affair, Secretariat, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, through - the Registrar M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (Madbya Pradesh) Py.. 3. The ' Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The District Superintendent ofPolice, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRTT PE^mON UNDER ARTICLBa J226/227 OF THB OONS'iaiiM[(Ml O^ INDIA FOR I^SUAl B OF WMT / WRTTS. GliRJ^BR / ORDERS. mRECTION / DIRECtlNO ETC, / /^' ^i3 :^., ? HI^H COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILASPUR DIVI5ION BENCH: HQN'BLi BHRI I.M.QUDDUSI <& HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AOARWAL.JJ,_ BgnTXQNgR: RgaPONDENTS Vs No.3537/2005 Latel Ram Yadav The State of Chhattisgarh & others ,__Pr@^ntj AAr. M.&. SharmQ Advocate, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss beepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. OR^L ORDER (Passed on 17th August, 2010) I.AA. Quddusi. J; 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition Qgainst the order dated 1.3.1997 (Annexure P-1), passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tn'bunal') thereby dismissing the Transferred Application No.393/1988 filed by the petitioner against the order doted 22.1.1986/whereby the petitioner has been removed from the service, with a prayer of his reinstatement. 2. E?rief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was in the police service, was entrusted with the investigati'on of Crime No.55/84 r,e.gistered in the Police Sfation Ratanpur, bistrict Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 379 & 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on thecomplaint of one SabQl Singl1 that his four he-buffaloes were stolen, The petitioner recovered the said he-'buffaloes and given suprudigi of the same to oneKranti Kumar, son of Ramavtar Shuklaof Village Podi on 4.4.1984. The petitioner had also arrested the accused persons under whose custody the said he-buffaloes were recovered. Complainant Sabal Singh Inade a complaint a9ainst the petitioner that he demanded Rs.1,000/- from him for giving he-buffaloes on suprudginama and accordingly, he first gave Rs.700/- and thereafter Rs.300/- to the petitioner but despite that he- buffaloes were not given to himon suprudginama and were wrongly g'vento the said Kranti Kumar. ^.Onthe complaint ofsaid Sabal Kumar, charge sheet cQntaining three charges was issued to the petitioner i.e. about accepting Rs.1,000/- as bribe from the complainant, for cloing an illegal act by giving recovered he-buffaloes to the third person namely Kranti Kumar ahd for acting in violation of the departmental rules. The enquiry was conducted as per procedure and after completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report.In the ^nqU(ry report, the enquiry officer has held that charge regarding taking bribe of Rs.1,000/- was not found proved against the petitioner. However, remaining two charges i.e. the petitioner has done an jllegal act by giving recovered he-buffaloes to the third person namely Kranti Kumar and has acted in violation of the departmental rules, were found proved. 4. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, punished the petitioner imposing the penalty of 'removal from service' vide order dated 22.1.1986. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appetlate Authority, which was dismissed by the appellqte authority vide order dated 7.8.1996. Aggrieved therewith, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal, which was registered as T.A.No.393/88 and the same was also dismissed vide order doted 1.3.1997. T'hus, the petitioner has fited the instant writ petition. -.^^ '^ -^ -.^^ ?1; l5;We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length ancl perused the impugned order, order passed by the appellate authority as well as the order passed by the Superintendent of Police/ Bilaspur. ^. The question for our consideration in thiswrit petition is whether by giving seized he-buffaloes to the third person ndmely Kranti Kumar the petitioner has committed misconduct and whether the said act of the petitioner has clegraded the imageof the department. It is alsp to be seen whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is in commensurqtion of his act. 7. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. says that any police officer rpay selze any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence and such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report fhe seizure to that officer and every police acting under sub-section (l)shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property sejzed is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court [or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property,or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of jnvestigation], he may give custody thereof to any persori on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. 8. From a bare reading of the above provisions, it is eyident that it is up to the satisfaction of the Investigating ^t^- -^ ^:t"^ 10. Offjcer to give custody of seized property to any perSon on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required. In this case, the gnqulry officer in his report has mentioned that during enquiry, statement of one Son Singh Gond was recorded and jn which he has stated that Sabal Singh has sold he-buffaloes to one Rambharose Mowar, Cattle Troder, and obtained Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, the said Rahnbharose had sold two he-buffaloes each to Nanhu Adhariya and Shivdhar Nand Baba. Therefore, if the petitioner had given the temporary custody of he-buffaloes to said Kranti Kumar to his satisfaction, in thecircumstances thot the complainant Sabal Kumar had already sold he-buffaloes to one Rambharose Mowar, Cattle Trader, action was taken on the complaint of the complainant (which could be termed as false complaint) and the complainant could not have been the nghtful ctQimGrtt of the property, it cannot be said thot the action of the Investigating Officer i.e. the petitioner herein, in giving temporary custody of he- buffaloes to an independent person i.e. KrantiKumar, was wrong. Thus, the petitioner could not have been chqrged for giving lawful custody in the facts and circumstances of the case. The further ground based onwhich the impugnedorder of l-emoval from the services was passed is that by the act of thepetitioner image of the police department was lowered down, but we do not see that act of the petitioner was against the law or any arbitrariness was there. In the matter of State of Meghalaya and others Vs Mecken Singh N Marak reported in (2008) 7 SCC 580 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering the proportionality of punishment imposed on a delinquent at r ^.^. ^)f ^ 11. ^/o the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the court should also take into consideratioh, the mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and siniilar relevantcircumstances which go into the decision- making process. If the charge employee holds the position of frust where honesty and integrity dre inbuilt requirementsof functioning, it would not be proper to deal Wlth the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such coses has to be dealt with with iron hands. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that even in caaes where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court/normally the disciplinary authority or the appellote authority should be directed to reconsider the question of itnpost'tion of penalty. The High Court in this case, has not only interfered with the punishment imposed by the djsciplinary authority in a routine manner but overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the appellate authority to impose any other punishment short of removal. By fettering the discretjon of the appeltate authority to impose appropriate punishment for serious misconducts committed by the respondent, the High Court totally misdirected itself while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. Judged in this background, the conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be regarded as proper at all. The High Court has interfered with the punishment imposed by the competent authority in a casual manner and, therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in th6 above cited judgment as also the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, we have no hesitation in saying that the punishment awarded to the .X) ^ v KWS/' .--^: petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur i.e. bisciplinary Authority, was too harsh in comparison to the alleged delinquency. 12. Ort the basis of aforesaid discussions, though we were intending to quash the impugned order of punishment dated 22.1.1986 (Annexure P-3) and remit the matter to—t-he &isciplinary Authority, but considering the fact that the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation and there is delay on the part of the petitionerin filing the instant writ petition, no fruitful purpose would be served in rGrnitting the matter. Therefore, while quashing the order dated 22.1.1986 (Annexure P-3) we direct that the petitioner would not be entitled to get any orrears of salary, however, he shall be entitled for pensionary benefits as per rules. 13. The petition is allowed in part, accordingly. 14. Certified copyasper rules. — Ito^h^i/- Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge