The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that the dismissal of a government driver for delaying a judge’s train journey was a disproportionate punishment. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf upheld the findings of misconduct but directed reconsideration of the penalty imposed, observing that the punishment of dismissal was excessive.
Background
Vijay Singh Bhadauriya, a Class IV employee serving as a driver in the District & Sessions Court, Bhopal, was removed from service by order dated February 24, 2007, following a departmental enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings arose from a complaint made by Justice S.K. Singh of the Allahabad High Court, who missed his train from Bhopal to Allahabad on the night of November 19, 2006, allegedly because the driver arrived late and was in an intoxicated state.
Departmental Charges and Inquiry
Bhadauriya was assigned to drive Justice S.K. Singh from the VIP Guest House to the railway station for a 1:30 AM train. He reached the guest house at 2:15 AM, by which time the train had already departed. A written complaint was made by the judge to the Assistant Protocol Officer, alleging that the driver was also in a drunken condition.
During the departmental inquiry:
- Suresh Singh, Railway Magistrate, Bhopal, testified that the petitioner was not in a normal state when seen at the railway station.
- Santosh Singh, Assistant Protocol Officer, confirmed that the written complaint was handed over by the judge in his presence.
- Chunamma Nath, Accountant, mentioned a prior complaint involving the petitioner during his earlier posting.
The petitioner denied being intoxicated and explained the delay was due to a flat tyre on his bicycle. He presented Sunil Kumar, a Home Guard, as a defence witness to corroborate his explanation.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench noted that the departmental enquiry was conducted properly, with full opportunity afforded to the petitioner, and the charges were duly established. The Court held:
“The charges leveled against the petitioner were duly proved in the Departmental Enquiry by examining relevant witnesses.”
However, the Bench also observed:
“The punishment of removal from the service is in outrageous defiance of logic and is shocking.”
The Court concluded that while misconduct was established, the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the nature of the offence.
Decision
The High Court, while upholding the findings of misconduct, quashed the order of dismissal. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment and impose a proportionate penalty, if any, within three months. The petitioner is to be reinstated immediately but will not be entitled to back wages, applying the principle of “no work, no pay.”
