SURENDRA PRASAD SHUKLAversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

                   [2011) 10 S.C.R. 799


                                                              A
             SURENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA
                             v.
          THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 7548 of 2011)
                  SEPTEMBER 01, 2011                          B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

     Service Law - Dismissal - Appellant-Head Constable in
State Police - His son along with two others arrested u/s. 392 c
/PC for robbing a car - Misconduct alleged against the
appellant that he harboured his son in the government
quarters occupied by him - Robbed car recovered from the
yard in front of the government quarters - Disciplinary
authority dismissed appellant from service for misconduct of
negligence, indiscipline and conduct unbecoming of a police D
personnel - Order ofdismissa/ upheld by the courts below -
On appeal, held: No charge against the appellant-employee
that he had in any way aided or abetted the offence u/s. 392
/PC or that he knew that his son had robbed the car and yet
he did not inform the police - He was guilty of negligence of E
not having enquired from his son about the car kept in front
of the government quarters occupied by him - Appellant
served the government as a Constable/Head Constable for
34 years, and for such long service he earned pension -
Punishment of dismissal from service so as to deprive him F
of his pension for the service that he had rendered for 34
years is shockingly disproportionate to the negligence proved
against him - Thus, the punishment of dismissal from service
is modified to compulsory retirement - Penal Code, 1860 -
&~                                                            G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7548 of 2011.

                            799                               H
     800      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 10 S.C.R.


 A       From the Judgment & Order dated 9.6.2008 of the High
     Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LP.A. No. 176 of 2008.

           Nagendra Rai, Shantanu Sagar, Smarhar Singh, Abhishek
     Kumar Singh, Gopi Raman, P. Agarwal, Preeti R., T. Mahipal
     for the Appellant.
 8
           Anil K. Jha, Chhaya Kumari Respondents.

           The Order of the Court was delivered by

                               ORDER
 c
           A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article
   136 of the Constitution against the order dated 09.06.2008 of
 D the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in LP.A. No.
   176 of 2008 (for short 'the impugned order').

         3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant was recruited
    as a Constable in the Bihar State Police on 07.08.1971 and
    he was later on promoted to the post of Head Constable
  E (Hawaldar). On 04.07.2004, a complaint was lodged in the
    Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station that three unknown persons
    had snatched a car, which was registered as Muzaffarpur Sadar
    P.S. Case No. 139 of 2004 under Section 392 of the Indian
    Penal Code (for short 'the l.P.C.'). The police recovered the
  F stolen car on 13.07.2004 from the government quarters
    occupied by the appellant and arrested the son of the appellant,
    Raju Shukla @ Rajiv Shukla alongwith two others who were
    involved in the theft of the car. The appellant was suspended
    and a memo of charges was served on him on 20.07.2004
  G charging him with the misconduct of negligence, indiscipline,
    conduct unbecoming of a police personnel. It was also alleged
    that he had harboured the accused Raju Shukla. He was asked
    to submit his explanation. The appellant submitted his reply on
    26.07.2004 to the Superintendent of Police, Purvi Singhbhoom,
, H Jamshedpur (for short the 'disciplinary authority') stating inter
     SURENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA v. STATE OF                      801
       JHARKHAND & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

 alia that in the evening of 12.07.2004 he had been to               A
 Tulailadugri T.O.P. for duty and he was patrolling in that area
 the whole night and that when he returned to his government
 quarters in the morning around 6:15 a.m. on 13.07.2004, he
  saw the police of Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station at his
  government quarters, who had arrested his son alongwith two        B
  others, and had seized the stolen Matiz car. He also stated in
  his reply that he did not get any time to question his son and
  that he had no idea that his son was involved in the crime. The
  enquiry officer then carried out the enquiry and submitted his
  report holding the appellant guilty of the charges and the         c
  disciplinary authority after considering enquiry report took the
 view that in the circumstances it was not reasonable that the
 appellant should serve the police force and passed an order
 of dismissal against him. The appellant carried an appeal to
 the Deputy Inspector General, Singhbhoom, but the appeal was        D
 dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision before the
. Inspector General of Police, but the same was also rejected.

      4. The appellant then filed Writ Petition (s) No. 6728 of
2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Jharkhand
High Court challenging his dismissal from service. The learned       E
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by
order dated 30.04.2008. Aggrieved, the appellant filed LP.A.
No. 176 of 2008 and the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the LP.A. by the impugned order. When the Special
Leave Petition was heard on 17.10.2008, this Court issued            F
notice to the respondent to show-cause why the punishment of
dismissal should not be altered to compulsory retirement. In
response to the notice, respondent no.4 has appeared and filed
his counter affidavit and has contended that the appellant is
guilty of keeping the robbed Matiz car and giving shelter to the     G
accused persons in his house and has not informed the matter
to the higher authorities and that the conduct of the appellant
has tarnished the image of the police force and that the
punishment of dismissal should not be altered to compulsory
retirement.                                                          H
    802     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 10 S.C.R.

A       5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
  we find that the misconduct alleged against the appellant was
  that he had harboured the accused Raju Shukla in the
  government quarters occupied by him and the stolen car was
  recovered from the yard in front of the government quarters. The
B enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the appellant was
  guilty of the misconduct. The disciplinary authority accepted the
  finding of the enquiry officer and was of the view that the
  appellant should not any longer serve the police force and
  dismissed him from service and the appellate authority and the
c revisional authority have agreed with the disciplinary authority.
  As the appellant was working as a Head Constable, it was his
  duty to enquire from his son about the car kept in front of the
  government quarters occupied by him, and by not performing
  this duty he was guilty of negligence. The fact that the son of
  the appellant, who was an accused in an offence under Section
0
  392 IPC, and his accomplices were found in the government
  quarters under the occupation of the appellant and the fact that
  the stolen car was also recovered from the yard in front of his
  government quarters were sufficient to hold the appellant guilty
  of negligence which affected the image of the police force in
E the area and for such negligence the authorities were right in
  taking the view that the appellant should not be retained in
  police service.

       6. The question which however arises for our decision is
F whether such negligence of the appellant was sufficient for the
  disciplinary authority to dismiss him from service. There was
  no charge against the appellant that he had in any way aided
  or abetted the offence under Section 392 IPC or that he knew
  that his son had stolen the car and yet he did not inform the
G police. The appellant, as we have held, was guilty of negligence
  of not having enquired from his son about the car kept in front
  of the government quarters occupied by him. The appellant had
  served the government as a Constable and thereafter as a
  Head Constable from 07.08.1971 till he was dismissed from
H service on 28.02.2005, i.e. for 34 years, and for such long
       SURENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA v. STATE OF                     803
         JHARKHAND & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

service he had earned pension. In our considered opinion, the        A
punishment of dismissal of the appellant from service so as to
deprive him of his pension for the service that he had rendered
for long 34 years was shockingly disproportionate to the
negligence proved against him.
                                                                     B
       7. We accordingly, allow this appeal in part and modify the
punishment of dismiesal from service to compulsory retirement.
The L. P.A. and the Writ Petition filed by the appellant before
the High Court are allowed in part. There shall be no order as
to costs.
                                                                     c
N.J.                                      Appeal partly allowed.