Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a police constable appointed in 1978, was charged with having an illicit relationship with the wife of one Balkishan Paliwal, based on a complaint in 1981. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved but recommended a minor penalty of bringing the petitioner to the basic pay scale for two years and withholding increments. The Disciplinary Authority (Commissioner of Police) disagreed with the penalty recommendation and imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority was dismissed, and the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal confirmed the removal. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that the Disciplinary Authority, having accepted the findings of misconduct, was not required to issue a fresh show cause notice before imposing a higher penalty, as the petitioner had already been given an opportunity to make representations on the proposed penalty. The court further held that an illicit relationship with a married woman constitutes misconduct involving moral turpitude, which is serious for a police constable. The punishment of removal was not disproportionate. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Disagreement with Enquiry Officer - The Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's recommendation of a minor penalty, can impose a major penalty of removal without issuing a fresh show cause notice if the findings of misconduct are accepted and the delinquent is given an opportunity to make representations on the proposed penalty. (Paras 5-6)
B) Service Law - Misconduct - Moral Turpitude - Illicit relationship with the wife of another person constitutes misconduct involving moral turpitude, especially for a police constable, as it reflects on his character and fitness for service. (Paras 3-4)
C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Removal from service for proven illicit relationship is not disproportionate, as the misconduct is serious and affects the discipline and reputation of the police force. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Disciplinary Authority can impose a higher penalty than recommended by the Enquiry Officer without issuing a fresh show cause notice, and whether an illicit relationship with a married woman constitutes misconduct involving moral turpitude warranting removal from service.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of removal from service.
Law Points
- Moral turpitude
- Illicit relationship
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Disagreement with enquiry officer
- Natural justice
- Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 89
Writ Petition No.2513/2001
P.B. Majmudar, A.P. Bhangale
Mr. R.A. Jaiswal, Mr. N.H. Joshi for petitioner; Ms. T.A. Khan, AGP for respondents 1 and 2
Ramesh s/o Dashrath Malode
State of Maharashtra, Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal confirming removal from service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was removed from service on grounds of illicit relationship with the wife of a complainant, which was held to be misconduct involving moral turpitude.
Previous Decisions
Disciplinary Authority imposed removal; Appellate Authority dismissed appeal; Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal confirmed removal.
Issues
Whether the Disciplinary Authority can impose a higher penalty than recommended by the Enquiry Officer without issuing a fresh show cause notice?
Whether an illicit relationship with a married woman constitutes misconduct involving moral turpitude warranting removal from service?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's penalty recommendation and imposed a major penalty without giving a fresh opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice.
Respondents argued that the Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of misconduct and only disagreed on penalty; the petitioner was given an opportunity to make representations on the proposed penalty, thus no violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The Disciplinary Authority, after accepting the findings of misconduct, can impose a higher penalty than recommended by the Enquiry Officer without issuing a fresh show cause notice if the delinquent has been given an opportunity to make representations on the proposed penalty. Illicit relationship with a married woman constitutes misconduct involving moral turpitude, especially for a police constable, and removal is not disproportionate.
Judgment Excerpts
The Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner regarding illicit relationship with the wife of the complainant are proved.
The Disciplinary Authority, after accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, disagreed with the penalty and imposed the penalty of removal from service.
In our view, the Disciplinary Authority was not required to issue a fresh show cause notice as the petitioner was given an opportunity to make representations on the proposed penalty.
Procedural History
1981: Complaint by Balkishan Paliwal. 1986: Chargesheet served. Departmental enquiry held; Enquiry Officer found charges proved and recommended minor penalty. Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed removal. Appeal to Appellate Authority dismissed. Transfer Application No.1439/1992 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed. Writ Petition No.2513/2001 filed in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951:
