30 October,2021 08:17 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
Rajeshwar Panchal, advocate
In a landmark judgment, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) recently set aside departmental action - involving no promotion and entitlement for grade allowances - against a senior police inspector. The police officer was accused of omission to perform duty. Interestingly, in the same year, 2013, the staffer had been applauded for being a good police officer in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR). The MAT, in its order, has explained what constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the relevant service rules, and directed the police department and government to restore his benefits, including refund of Rs 1,000 deducted per month from his pension.
"This judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is landmark, as the order makes it clear as to what really constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the relevant rules. The applicant was punished on the grounds that he failed to guide his subordinates in detection of crime as well as filing charge sheets," said advocate Rajeshwar Panchal, who appeared for the applicant, Ravindra Javkar, before MAT.
"As a result of this case, many other police personnel who are subjected to such disciplinary charges, will benefit. The Apex court has time and again explained as to what constitutes misconduct. Failure to attend the highest standard of achievement does not constitute misconduct, at the most it may be a factor to be considered for the purpose of writing the ACR. I am happy that I could secure justice for the applicant who was suspended for two-three years and then punished with the penalty which was also not prescribed by the law." Ravindra Javkar said, "I am overwhelmed that justice has finally been served and I am expecting speedy settlement of rightful dues and allowances."
Javkar, a resident of Goregaon East, was senior police inspector at Vikhroli police station, when he was served with a charge sheet dated April 16, 2013 while he was in charge of the police station. The charges were: no effective prohibitive steps taken against the accused involved in property offences; failure to arrest absconding accused; out of 246 offences registered, offenders were detected only in 130 offences; and of these, charge sheets were filed in the court of law in 103 offences. Thus, the applicant allegedly failed to perform as in-charge senior police inspector, and there was also lack of proper guidance to his subordinates.
Javkar submitted his reply denying all the charges before the enquiry officer. However, the enquiry officer, in his report dated July 16, 2013, held him guilty as charged. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice, to which Javkar replied denying the charges, specifically contending that the charges do not constitute any misconduct or negligence much less punishable under the provisions of Maharashtra Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956.
However, the disciplinary authority, by order dated February 2, 2017, turned down the defence and accepted the enquiry report and imposed punishment of deduction of Rs 1,000 per month from his pension for one year, as on April 30, 2014, Javkar had retired. He filed an appeal before the government which was dismissed by order dated August 3, 2018. So, Javkar challenged both orders before the MAT.
In the charge sheet, no witness was cited by the police department. Similarly, no witness was examined in the departmental enquiry in support of the charges. Despite this, the enquiry officer recorded the finding, accepting the charges without stating how they constitute negligence or misconduct, despite the reply filed by Javkar.
The disciplinary authority, too, did not consider the defence statement filed by Javkar and observed that the reply filed by him was unsatisfactory. Javkar's lawyer argued that such charges could be treated as failure to achieve the high standard of efficiency in performance of duties, and could be a subject of writing adverse entries in the ACR, but cannot be construed as omission to perform duties or misconduct.
AJ Chougule, who represented the respondents (State of Maharashtra, Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and Additional Commissioner (East) Region), argued that the applicant failed to discharge his duties and was found negligent in performance, and therefore, attracted a penalty.
AP Kurhekar, Member Judge, set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated February 22, 2017 and August 3, 2018 against Javkar on October 14 and observed, "The punishment is totally unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed."
