RAMANUJ PANDEY versus THE STATE OF M. P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.,. 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 571 
RAMANUJ PANDEY 
v.' 
THE STATE OF M. P. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3406 of 2009) 
MAY 08, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law: Misconduct - Police constable during 
discharge of official duty apprehending public servant under 
Lunacy Act ·- On complaint, initiation of disciplinary C 
proceedings - Punishment of termination of service - Order 
confirmed in writ proceeding - On appeal, held: Quantum of 
punishment in case of misconduct not to be interfered with in 
.. 
judicial review - However, the conduct of the delinquent was 
not grave enough to punish him with removal of service - In 
D 
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution, 
punishment of removal of service altered to one of 
compulsory retirement as a warning to others and not as a 
vengeance - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 and 
226 - Judicial Review. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3406 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2006 of the High 
F 
Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, (M.P.) in Writ Appeal No. 693 
of 2006. 
Rajesh for the Appellants. 
S.K. Dubey, Naveen and B.S. Banthia for the 
G 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
571 
I 
H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
H.L. DATIU, 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 
B 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. 
c 
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 relevant date i.e. 25.9.1991 
while discharging his duties as lncharge, Outpost, Kolar Dam, 
D 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 
E 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 
F 
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 
G 
without any reason, violatirig 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 
H 
authority. The appellant then went in appeal before the Division 
RAMANUJ PANDEY v. STATE OF M. P. AND ORS. 
573 
' 
[H. L. DATTU, J.] 
Bench. The Division Bench held that appellant being a Head 
A 
Constable has apprehended Laxmi Narain and 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. 
B 
... 
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 c 
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: 
D 
"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 inv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.