Punishment Shocks Conscience Of Court | Madhya Pradesh HC Sets Aside Peon's Dismissal For Delayed VIP Duty And Alleged Drunkenness
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf held that while the finding of misconduct against a Class IV employee was legally sustainable, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charge. The Court directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment and impose an appropriate penalty supported by cogent reasons. It further directed that the petitioner be reinstated immediately but clarified that back wages would not be granted, applying the principle of “no work no pay.” The matter was disposed of with directions for compliance within three months.
The petitioner, a Class IV employee serving as a peon in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, challenged an order dated 24 February 2007, issued by the disciplinary authority, which imposed the penalty of removal from service. The punishment was imposed following a departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner for alleged misconduct during his assigned duty as a driver on VIP assignment.
The petitioner had initially been appointed on a temporary basis as a driver in the contingency establishment of the District and Sessions Court and was later absorbed into a regular pay scale with effect from 4 January 2004. On 20 November 2006, a charge sheet was served, alleging that the petitioner failed to timely report for duty between 18 to 20 November 2006. He was specifically tasked with transporting a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice S.K. Singh, from the VIP Guest House, Bhopal to the Railway Station at 1:30 a.m. on 19 November 2006 for a scheduled departure to Allahabad.
According to the charge, the petitioner did not arrive at the guest house at the designated time, only reaching at 2:15 a.m., by which time the train had already departed. A written complaint was filed the same night by Justice S.K. Singh to Assistant Protocol Officer (APO) Santosh Singh Bias, stating that the petitioner was not only late but also appeared to be in a drunken state.
An inquiry officer was appointed who recorded statements from witnesses presented by both the department and the petitioner. The final report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, which after affording an opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service under Rule 10(viii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.
Challenging the punishment, the petitioner contended that he was not medically examined, nor was there sufficient evidence to prove he was under the influence of alcohol. He claimed that the sole basis for the allegation was the written complaint from the judge. He further explained that he was delayed because the tyre of his bicycle was punctured en route to pick up the car. He submitted that the department failed to consider the defence evidence he had produced, including testimony from a Home Guard stationed at the vehicle’s parking site, who supported the claim regarding the bicycle issue.
The petitioner argued that the finding of guilt was unjust and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the nature of the charge. He sought reinstatement and quashing of the penalty order.
In response, the State submitted that the charges were duly proved through a fair enquiry conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. The respondents maintained that the written complaint from Justice S.K. Singh carried weight and that corroborative testimony from multiple witnesses substantiated the allegation of misconduct. It was contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and that the decision of the disciplinary authority was reasonable and supported by material evidence.
The respondents further submitted that the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought not to interfere with findings of fact or the adequacy of evidence, citing relevant precedent in support.
The Court recorded: “The charges leveled against the petitioner were duly proved in the Departmental Enquiry by examining relevant witnesses.” It stated: “The defence put up by the petitioner was duly considered by the Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report.”
Addressing the evidentiary submissions, the Court noted: “Shri Suresh Singh, Railway Magistrate, Bhopal categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that High Court Judge of Allahabad could not reach to Railway Station on time as the petitioner came late at VIP Guest House and was in drunken state.” It further recorded: “In the cross examination, he clarified that petitioner was not in the normal condition when he met to the petitioner at Railway Station.”
The testimony of the Assistant Protocol Officer was also cited: “Another witness Santosh Singh Mess, APO narrated the entire incident in detail and stated that petitioner was directed to reach VIP Guest House at 1.30 AM on 19.11.2006 but when he did not reach on time, Judge of Allahabad High Court called him at 2.45 AM and asked him to reach at Railway Station.”
Regarding the procedural fairness, the Court noted: “Proper procedure was adopted during inquiry and the inquiry was conducted in fair and impartial manner and full opportunity was afforded to the delinquent.”
The Bench then considered the disciplinary penalty imposed and observed: “Looking to the charge of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal appears to be disproportionate.” It recorded: “The allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to reach at VIP Guest House on time and therefore, the Judge of Allahabad High Court could not board the train as scheduled.”
It was stated: “In our considered opinion, allegation is not sufficient for dismissal of the delinquent from the service.” The Court further held: “The punishment of removal from the service is in outrages defines of logic and is shocking and if the punishment imposed 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 clarified: “This Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as appellate authority.” However, it noted: “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.”
The Court upheld the findings of misconduct established against the petitioner but set aside the penalty imposed. It directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment in light of the misconduct found to be proved.
The Court mandated that this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
It further ordered that the petitioner be reinstated with immediate effect, while making it clear that he would not be entitled to any back wages, applying the principle of “no work no pay.” The petition was accordingly disposed of to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Shailendra Pandey, Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Shri Vivek Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Shri Brijesh Nath Misra, Advocate
Case Title: Vijay Singh Bhadauriya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:21250
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11412 of 2008
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf
[Read/Download order]
