The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the dismissal of a driver who was removed from service for arriving late while assigned to VIP duty for a High Court judge. The Court found the penalty “shocking” and “disproportionate,” and has directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf. The Court observed that although there was a delay in reaching the VIP Guest House, the severity of removing the driver from service was unjustified.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Criticizes Madhya Pradesh Police Over Custodial Death: "Man Dies, No Arrest In 10 Months!"
“Looking to the charge of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal appears to be disproportionate,” the bench noted.
The petitioner was working as a peon in the District and Sessions Court, Bhopal, and was later promoted to the post of Driver on regular pay scale. He was assigned VIP duty to escort Justice S.K. Singh of the Allahabad High Court during a visit to Bhopal. He was required to pick up the judge from the VIP Guest House and take him to the railway station to catch a 1:30 AM train. However, the driver arrived at 2:15 AM, and the train had already departed.
Justice S.K. Singh submitted a written complaint stating that the driver was not only late but also appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. The matter led to a departmental inquiry, where the disciplinary authority concluded that the driver was guilty and removed him from service under Rule 10(viii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The driver challenged this decision in court, claiming that he had not been sent for a medical test to confirm intoxication, and that the complaint alone could not be treated as sufficient proof. He explained the delay by stating that his bicycle had a punctured tire on the way to fetch the car. He also argued that none of the defence evidence was adequately considered.
"The Judge, being annoyed, made the complaint. The charge of drunkenness was never proven by medical test or reliable witness," the petitioner's counsel contended.
The respondents, however, insisted that due process had been followed. They maintained that credible evidence and witness testimony supported the findings and that the inquiry was fair.
The High Court accepted the finding of misconduct but highlighted the limitations of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench clarified that the Court could not reassess the evidence like an appellate authority and could intervene only when rules were violated or natural justice was denied.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Urges State to Speed Up Arbitration Tribunal Appointments Amid Long Delays
“The High Court can interfere only if statutory rules or regulations are found to be violated,” the bench emphasized.
Despite upholding the finding of misconduct, the Court concluded that the punishment did not match the nature of the offence.
“In our considered opinion, the allegation is not sufficient for dismissal of the delinquent from service. The punishment is outrageous and shocks the conscience of the Court.”
As a result, the Court set aside the penalty and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority to decide on a more appropriate punishment, supported by clear reasoning.
The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Vijay Singh Bhadauriya Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 11412 Of 2008
Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. Shailendra Pandey, Adv. Vineet Kumar Pandey and Adv. Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent/State: Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma
Counsel for Respondent No. 3: Adv. Brijesh Nath Misra
