2007 JTR(SC) 1298
2007 60 AIC 120 ; 2008 2 AIR(Jhar)(R) 232 ; 2008 AIR(SC) 375 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 7054 ; 2008 1 ALD(SC) 100 ; 2008 1 ApexCJ(SC) 96 ; 2008 1 APLJ 6 ; 2008 1 AWC 1085 ; 2007 115 FLR 794 ; 2008 1 JLJR(SC) 20 ; 2008 Supp4 KLT 730 ; 2008 LIC 226 ; 2008 1 LLN 85 ; 2008 1 PLJR(SC) 20 ; 2008 1 RSJ 236 ; 2007 12 Scale 320 ; 2007 8 SCC 656 ; 2007 2 SCC(L&S) 990 ; 2007 10 SCR 929 ; 2007 4 SCT 615 ; 2007 KHC 4097 ; 2007 8 Supreme 132
2007(8) Supreme 132
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
A.K. Mathur, Markandey Katju, JJ
The Govt. of A.P. & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Mohd. Taher Ali — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 2007
Decided on : 9-10-2007
Important Point
Absence of 21 days by a member of disciplined force is sufficient to justify his compulsory retirement.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law provisions governing disciplinary proceedings and appeals apply to this case, specifically addressing matters of misconduct, in this instance, desertion from election duty by a police constable, where the prescribed process of inquiry, charge, and representation was followed, and the adjudicatory authority's finding of habitual absenteeism attracted the prescribed penalty of compulsory retirement, with the appellate hierarchy affirming the right to impose such punishment for serious breaches of discipline.
(B) Key legal principles include that a member of a disciplined force who deliberately avoids assigned duty, such as election security, commits serious misconduct warranting severe penalties; prior instances of misconduct may be considered by the disciplinary authority even if not explicitly reiterated in charges; habitual absenteeism justifies compulsory retirement; and appellate courts will not interfere if the findings are supported by evidence and the penalty is proportionate.
Facts of the case:
A police constable was detailed for election duty but unauthorizedly absent without leave on 2nd September, 1999 and had a history of similar absenteeism; he was charged with desertion, found guilty after an inquiry, and ordered to compulsorily retire, a decision remitted by the Administrative Tribunal but later affirmed by the High Court, leading to this special leave appeal.
Findings of Court:
The respondent's unauthorized absence from a critical national duty was a serious lapse; the inquiry officer's report was valid; prior misconduct could be considered to reinforce the penalty; a 21-day absence by a disciplined force member is sufficient for compulsory retirement; and the High Court and Tribunal erred in remitting the matter for reconsideration.
Issues:
Whether the disciplinary authority properly considered prior misconduct not explicitly listed in the charges; whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the offense of desertion from election duty; and whether the High Court had grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi:
A police constable's deliberate and repeated absence from essential election duty constitutes grave misconduct justifying compulsory retirement, and appellate courts will uphold such punishment where the inquiry procedure was fair and the penalty is warranted by the facts and circumstances, irrespective of minor procedural variations in charge communication.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the orders of the High Court and Administrative Tribunal are set aside, and the compulsory retirement penalty is confirmed.
(A) The Service Law provisions governing disciplinary proceedings and appeals apply to this case, specifically addressing matters of misconduct, in this instance, desertion from election duty by a police constable, where the prescribed process of inquiry, charge, and representation was followed, and the adjudicatory authority's finding of habitual absenteeism attracted the prescribed penalty of compulsory retirement, with the appellate hierarchy affirming the right to impose such punishment for serious breaches of discipline.
(B) Key legal principles include that a member of a disciplined force who deliberately avoids assigned duty, such as election security, commits serious misconduct warranting severe penalties; prior instances of misconduct may be considered by the disciplinary authority even if not explicitly reiterated in charges; habitual absenteeism justifies compulsory retirement; and appellate courts will not interfere if the findings are supported by evidence and the penalty is proportionate.
Facts of the case:
A police constable was detailed for election duty but unauthorizedly absent without leave on 2nd September, 1999 and had a history of similar absenteeism; he was charged with desertion, found guilty after an inquiry, and ordered to compulsorily retire, a decision remitted by the Administrative Tribunal but later affirmed by the High Court, leading to this special leave appeal.
Findings of Court:
The respondent's unauthorized absence from a critical national duty was a serious lapse; the inquiry officer's report was valid; prior misconduct could be considered to reinforce the penalty; a 21-day absence by a disciplined force member is sufficient for compulsory retirement; and the High Court and Tribunal erred in remitting the matter for reconsideration.
Issues:
Whether the disciplinary authority properly considered prior misconduct not explicitly listed in the charges; whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the offense of desertion from election duty; and whether the High Court had grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi:
A police constable's deliberate and repeated absence from essential election duty constitutes grave misconduct justifying compulsory retirement, and appellate courts will uphold such punishment where the inquiry procedure was fair and the penalty is warranted by the facts and circumstances, irrespective of minor procedural variations in charge communication.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the orders of the High Court and Administrative Tribunal are set aside, and the compulsory retirement penalty is confirmed.
Order
1.We have learned counsel for the parties.
2.This appeal by special leave is directed against the order daed 9.3.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal whereby the Administrative Tribunal remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for consideration of the punishment imposed in the matter. Hence the present appeal filed by the State of A.P.
3.It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts. Suffice it to say that the incumbent was a Police Constable at Alwal (Halia) P.S. and he was detailed for election duty at Chuddaph Election Bandobusth duty along with order PS men with instructions to report before SDPO Miryalguda, but he did not report for duty on 2nd September, 1999 along with other PS men before SDPO Miryalguda and absented himself unauthorisdely without leave or permission with effect from 2nd September, 1999. Therefore, he was charged for the offence of desertion. The C.I. of Police, Miryalguda was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. The respondent did not file any written representation of defence in response to the charges leavelled against him. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and found him guilty and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and the Superintendent of Police on receipt of the same, sent a copy of that report to the respondent but he did not file any written representation of defence in response to that report. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police concluded that the respondent has no explanation to the charges levelled against him. It was also recorded that this is not a solitary incidence. The respondent had also earlier been found to be guilty of desertion of a couple of occasions. Hence the S.P. imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. This was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal did not interfere with the finding of the report of the Inquiry Officer but remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the question of punishment. Aggriveved by that order, the State Government filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.
4.It is an admitted position that the respondent was appointed on election duty but he absented himself from election duty. The seems that the respondent did not consider the election duty to be an important business which is very important for the whole nation. The respondent was appointed on election duty and was deputed to take security arrangement but absented himself from duty. This is a very serious lapse on the part of the respondent. The police force is a disciplined force and the respondent was detailed for such an important duty of election. He absented himself from election duty. Such kind of serious lapse cannot be treated lightly. It is a very important function and if the incumbent avoided the duty of election, he cannot escape from the liability of the penalty of compulsory retirement. We fail to understand the reason for the Administrative Tribunal or for the High Court to have remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent.
5.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in fact, the disciplinary authority while passing the order has taken into consideration the earlier absence of the respondent from the duty. He submitted that this could not have been taken into consideration as the respondent was not aware about these incidents and those were not the part of the charges levelled against him. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the judgment of this Court titled State of Mysore v. V.K. Manche Gowda reported in1, 1964 (4) SCR 540 but in the present case we are satisfied that in fact the respondent deliberately absented himself from duty and did not offer any explanation for his absence from election duty. It is not the respondent’s first absence. He also absented himself from duty on earlier occasions also. In our opinion there can be no hard and fast rule that merely because the earlier misconduct has not been mentioned in the chargesheet it cannot be taken into consideration by the punishing authority. Consideration of the earlier misconduct is often only to reinforce the opinion of the said authority. The police force is a disciplined force and if the respondent is a habitual absentee then there is no reason to ignore this fact at the time of imposing penalty. Moreover, even ignoring the earlier absence, in our opinion, the absence of 21 days by a member of disciplined force is sufficient to justify his compulsory retirement.
6.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court as well as by the Administrative Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as well as of the Administrative Tribunal and confirm the order of compulsory retirement for the serious lapse on the part of the respondent.
7.This appeal is accordingly, allowed.
8.No order as to costs.
***********