RAJENDRA YADAV versus STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 13-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 1029 
RAJENDRA YADAV 
V. 
STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 1334 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 13, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Disciplinary proceedings - Equality in punishment -
c 
Held: Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which 
is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious 
offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences -
Therefore, punishment of dismissal from service imposed on 
appellant is set aside and it is ordered that he be reinstated 0 
in service forthwith from the date on which the co-delinquent 
was re-instated, and with the same consequent benefits -
Doctrine of equality. 
A departmental inquiry was conducted against the 
appellant, a Head Constable of Police, and two others 
E 
namely, an ASI and another Head Constable, for 
demanding and accepting illegal gratification for 
registering a police complaint. The money was proved to 
have been paid to the co-delinquent (a Constable) and as 
far as the appellant was concerned, with regard to 
F 
receiving money, his participation and tacit approval were 
proved. The ASI was demoted for three years. The 
appellant and the other Head Constable were dismissed 
from service and the co-delinquent (the Constable) was 
awarded the punishment of reduction of increment with G 
cumulative effect for one year. The departmental appeal, 
the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the appellant 
having been dismissed, he filed the appeal. 
1029 
H 
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The doctrine of equality applies to all who 
are equally placed; even among persons who are found 
guilty. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be 
8 maintained when punishment is being imposed. The 
Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which 
is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious 
offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. 
In the instant case, the charge levelled against the co-
C delinquent was more serious than the one against the 
appellant. It was the co-delinquent who had demanded 
and received the money; he was inflicted comparatively 
a lighter punishment. At the same time, the appellant, who 
had played a passive role, was inflicted with a more 
serious punishment of dismissal from service, which 
D cannot be sustained. Therefore, the punishment of 
dismissal from service imposed on the appellant is set 
aside and it is ordered that he be reinstated in service 
forthwith from the date on which the co-delinquent was 
re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was 
E given to the said co-delinquent. [para 11-12 and 14] [1034-
E-F, G-H; 1035-A-B; 1036-A-B] 
Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. V. 
Shai/eshkumr Harshadbhai Shah 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 370 
F = (2006) 6 SCC 548; Director General of Police and Others 
v. G. Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407 - relied on. 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 370 
relied on 
(1998) 2 sec 407 
relied on 
para 9 
para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1334 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.09.2011 of the High 
RAJENDRA YADAV v. STATE OF M.P. 
1031 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.A. No. 1135 of 
A 
2007. 
Rakesh Khanna, Udit Kumar, Bankey Bihari for the 
Appellant. 
Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, B.S. Banthia for the 
B 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Appellant, a Police Constable, while he was working in 
the police station Rahatgarh, District Sagar along with AS.I. 
Lakhan Tiwari and Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Tiwari 
stated to have received an amount of Rs.3,000 for not 
implicating certain persons involved in Crime No. 4 of 2002 
D 
charged under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506(B), 34 IPC. A 
complaint to that effect was filed by one Kundan Rajak, a 
resident of Village Sothia, PS Rahatgarh. Acting on that 
complaint, the appellant was charge-sheeted, along with ·two 
others, vide proceedings dated 6.5.2002 by the Superintendant 
E 
of Police, Sagar. The following are the charges levelled against 
the appellant: 
(1) 
He demonstrated gross negligence and lack of 
interest in discharge of his duty by not implicating 
all the persons involved in the crime. 
(2) 
He demonstrated misconduct by accepting 
Rs.3,000 from the complainant Kundan Rajak for 
lodging a report in the police station. 
3. Appellant filed a detailed reply to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.