fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2746 of2008 4^ Bhupnarayan Dhritlahre Vs. The State ofChhattisgarh & Others Post ofpronouncement ofjudgment and orders on t-f /03/2009 Sd/- SatishKAgnihotri Judge fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR/ , ^ 7 -^ Writ Petition fS) No. 2746 of2008 <-^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : Bhupnarayan Dhritlahre son of Likhanta Dhritlahare, aged about 39 years, Ex-Constable No. 201, Resident of Village Dongarideeh, Police Station Kasdol, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Police and Home Affairs, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur (CG). 3. The Inspector General ofPolice, Raipur Region, Raipur (CG). 4. The Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri R.K. Kesarwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. r^ (Passed on this _S__day ofMarch, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the legality and validity ofthe order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, (for short 'SP9) whereby the petitioner was removed from service deciding the period of absence under the provisions of Fundamental Rule-18, and order dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P/4), whereby theappeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed, affirming the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon. v:x&Ii ^ %i "^^ \ ^^ (^ 2. The indisputable facts, as projected by the petitioner is that, the petitioner was working as Constable when his services was terminated by order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/3), on the ground that the petitioner has remained absent for 44 days i.e. 05.03.2007 to 09.03.2007, 04.04.2007 to 17.04.2007, 26.04.2007 to 09.05.2007 and 04.06.2007 to 14.06.2007, without prior permission of the authorities. Before termination of the petitioner, a charge- sheet containing following charges were issued : 1. "l^ff^ 05.03.2007 ^ ^l'ct) 09.03.2007 ^cT 04 f^T, f^-TT^ 04.04.2007 ^ ^rra? 17.04.2007 ^cr 13 f^ff, l^ri^ 26.04.2007 ^ f^lf^ 09.05.2007 ^cr 17 f^ff ^ l^rn? 04.06.2007 ^ f^rra? 14.06.2007 cW 10 f^T^T ^T^ SRTf^^T ^T ^ 4^glRj1^ ^?^? I?OTTO RlRd ^^T 3TFRUT f$PPT-1965 ^ f^PPT-3 ^t ^'fe^T-1 ^t ^T ^'fe^T (^f) l^ ^RT ^T3^?FT ^t c^i^T-64 (s) ^T Kiwl'y-1 <fr^^l 1 2. ^ ^' ^rFTrf^H ^T ^ 4^^lRj1^ ^g^ TR ^TP^H ^^ c^ ^T^<? STTcRUT ^" ^qR -^ cTP^? ^f^RT ^T3^?TrT ^t ^'fe^T-64 ^ ^T ^f^T (4) ^ f^M^ld ^TTcRUT ^T^fn cb^-tl |" 3. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted. On holding both the charges levelled against the petitioner as found proved. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. SP, considered the report, agreeing with the enquiry report, terminated the petitioner from ser^ices and the absent period was decided in accordance with provisions of Fundamental Rule-18, on 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/3). 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General ofPolice, Raipur (for short 'IG9). The IG, after having considered all the aspects ofthe matter, dismissed the appeal on 01.04.2008 (Annexure P/4), affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. SP. Thus, this petition. 5. Shri R.K. Kesarwani, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order passed in appeal is bad on a simple ground that no reasons have been assigned. In support ofhis contention, he relied on a decision passed in the matter of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others Vs. Madhusudhan •'-^Jt::.'^ ..•""-^1' \\ fi ...< '"-^& ^ Rao . Secondly, the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority have not considered the representation filed by the petitioner. In support of his contention leamed counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court passed in the matter of Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another2. He further submits that under the provisions of Fundamental Rule-lS^ the period of absence was treated as dies-non, the same is also a punishment and second punishment cannot be imposed when the petitioner has been removed from ser^ice. He farther submits that the punishment of the petitioner on account of health problem is excessive and harsh. 6. Per contra, Smt. Smita Ghai, leamed counsel appearing for the State would submit that the absence of the petitioner was unauthorized and contrary to the provisions ofRule 3 ofthe C.G. Civil Ser^ices (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and also violation ofRegulation 64 (3) ofthe Police Regulations. She would next contend that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing and the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings. There is no allegation ofany deficiency in the enquiry proceedings, except that the medical bills submitted by the petitioner have not been considered in the enquiry report. This is not a first instance. The petitioner has remained absent on various occasions and the State cannot permit employee in unifomi to remain absent unauthorizedly when their presence is highly required at a place where they are posted. The petitioner has been awarded 53 minor and 4 major penalties in the past and despite the fact, there was no improvement in his conduct. It is well settled that ifthe appellate authority is agreeing with the order passed by the authority below, it is not necessary to give reasons. Thus, this petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. I have gone through the enquiry report. It is found ' 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 788 21999 SCC (L&S) 1385 / that the petitioner was assigned serious duty and the petitioner left assignment and remained absent without taking permission ofthe higher authorities. Even if, the petitioner has fallen sick, he ought to have informed the superior authorities so that some other Constable could be posted in his place. I have gone through the medical bills also submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was posted in Rajnandgaon and he has obtained some medical certificates from Primary Health Center, Lawan, District Raipur, indicating that he was suffering from fever. If the petitioner was suffering from fever, he ought to have taken recourse to Hospitals or Dispensary in Rajnandgaon itself. It appears that the petitioner remained outside the district without permission of the authorities and has produced some certificates which are not from the hospital or dispensary of Rajnaridgaon district, thus, the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry officer has not considered medical bills, is without any basis and deserves to be rejected. 8. The contention of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is violation of Regulation 64 (3) of Police Regulations, is not acceptable. Regulation 64 (3) ofPolice Regulations provides as under: "(3). He shall conform himself implicity to all mles which shall, from time to time, be made for the regulation and good order of the service, and shall cultivate a proper regard for its honour and respectability." Regulation 64 (3) does not provide for an obligation on the officers to infonn the police Constable regularly about his service conditions. He should cultivate a proper regard for its honour. By not remaining absent unauthorizedly, he has violated Regulation 64 (3) ofthe Police Regulations also and there is violation ofRule 3 ofM.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 also. Thus, there is no irregularity or illegality in the order. The punishment, having regard to the facts, that the petitioner is a member of disciplined force; sentence is neither excessive nor harsh. 9. In the matter ofDivisional Forest Officer (Supra), the Supreme Court obser^ed asunder: "20. It is no doubt also tme that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower fomm but, in our view, in the interests ofjustice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind ofthe appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is tme that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower fomm." 10.In the matter ofYoginath Bagde (Supra), relied on by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, wherein, while dealing with control of High Court under Article 235 ofthe Constittition of India, over the judicial officers of the subordinate courts, the Supreme Court obser^ed as under: "51......although the court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry office in a departmental enquiry, it does not mean that in no circumstance can the court interfere. It was obser/ed that the power ofjudicial review available to a High Court as also to this court under the constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and the courts can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse." ll»Having exammed the facts of the case, it cannot be held that the appellate authority has not given a brief reason while agreeing with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. This Court has already looked into all aspects of the matter. 12.It is well settled principal of law that court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience ofthe court. 13.The Supreme Court, in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari3 obser^ed as under: ' 2006 (10) SCC 388 ^ r f 63), "15. The common thread mnning through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience ofthe court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that ofthe administrator. The scope ofjudicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 16. To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigations it may., in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 17. The above position was recently reiterated in Union oflndia v. K.G. Soni following Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain )! 14.In view ofthe discussions made hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sahu