Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Of Court Staff For Taking ₹10 As Bribe

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking direction of the Court to quash the impugned orders of his punishment and arrears for the period of his suspension.

The facts of the case were that the Petitioner was working as Criminal Reader in the court of JFMC, Jabalpur. He was caught by Vigilance Authority of the Court taking bribe of Rs.10 from the Complainant. Corollary to the same, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, an inquiry was initiated, wherein as many as three charges were leveled against him. The Disciplinary Authority held him guilty of all the three charges and directed his compulsory retirement from the post as punishment. The Appellate Authority also upheld his punishment. The Petitioner then preferred a Review Petition before the Court, wherein he was exonerated of two charges but the bribery charge of Rs. 10 was upheld, and therefore, his punishment was not interfered with.

The Petitioner asserted that he was being made a scapegoat by the Complainant and that there was no evidence against him to establish his guilt. He then submitted that no trap could have been laid by the employer since such power is vested exclusively with the Lokayukt. He further argued that since the Court had dropped two out of three charges against him, the penalty inflicted upon him was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Per contra, the State submitted that the orders imposing penalty were just and proper. It was further argued that the Disciplinary Authority, while considering every document of the disciplinary proceedings, had come to a conclusion that the Petitioner not fit to be retained in service. Thus, considering the seriousness of the charges, it imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement.

The State also argued that interference with departmental inquiry can be made by the Writ Court if the inquiry was held by an incompetent authority or was conducted against the procedure prescribed or in the event of violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, since none of the eventualities was available in the present case, it was submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Examining the submissions of parties and the documents on record, the Court noted that contrary to the claims of the Petitioner, the case in hand contained ample evidence against him. Conversely, the Court observed that the Petitioner had pressurized the Complainant to not testify against him-

The above admission of the complainant not only completely demolishes the entire defence of the petitioner but also compels us to draw adverse inference against the petitioner inasmuch as he himself was guilty of abuse of the process by attempting to pressurize the witness. Thus, it cannot be said that its a case of no evidence. The complainant categorically stated in his complaint and also the statement which was recorded on 21/07/2008 (Ex.P/5C) itself that the petitioner had told him to bring Rs.10/- on the next date and thus accordingly on the next date of hearing, he gave bribe of Rs.10/- to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court concluded-

Thus, in our considered view, there was ample evidence against the petitioner and particularly looking to his conduct even during the course of inquiry, when he made an attempt to mount undue pressure upon the complainant to give favourable testimony, therefore, petitioner's submission that the procedure laid down for holding the departmental inquiry was vitiated or the case in hand is a case of no evidence, is ill founded.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that based on the evidence brought on record, the Disciplinary Authority rightly passed the order of compulsory retirement, which was in consonance with the gravity of charges leveled against the Petitioner. It further observed that the said part of the order was rightly affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed.