Government of A.P. and Ors. v. Mohd. Taherali

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-10-09
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The orders of the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court are set aside; the punishment of compulsory retirement stands confirmed against the respondent.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed, with the compulsory retirement upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Respondents

Mohd. Taherali

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• D. Bharathi Reddy

Counsels for Respondents

• Promila

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal challenges a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and an Administrative Tribunal order remitting a disciplinary matter back for reconsideration of punishment in a police service. The appellant State contends that a constable, detailed for election bandobust duty, absented himself on 2 September 1999 and was charged with desertion. An Inquiry Officer found him guilty; the Superintendent of Police imposed compulsory retirement with immediate effect. The Administrative Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration of punishment, and the High Court upheld that remand. The Supreme Court held that absence from election duty in a disciplined police force constitutes a very serious lapse and that the penalty of compulsory retirement was rightly imposed, even when prior absences are not charged. It rejected any hard-and-fast rule erasing consideration of earlier misconduct; the court noted that habitual absenteeism can reinforce the seriousness of the lapse. It clarified that a 21-day absence suffices to justify compulsory retirement. The Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court remands and allowed the appeal, thereby upholding the compulsory retirement and emphasizing the critical nature of election duties, discipline, and public security.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Absence from election bandobust duty by a police constable is a grave breach of discipline in a critically sensitive function. The appellant State submits that a disciplined police force must maintain reliability and accountability, especially in election-related security. The respondent absented himself for 21 days while deployed for election duty and did not report as required; the inquiry found guilt on desertion. The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed by the disciplinary authority, and remand by the Administrative Tribunal on the quantum of punishment was improper. The State contends that prior incidents of desertion or absence may be relevant in assessing fitness and reliability, and there is no necessity to remit proceedings when the facts justify the sanction. In public security, such absence cannot be tolerated; deterrence and trust in the force require stringent sanctions. The High Court and Tribunal erred in remitting the matter and should have sustained the compulsory retirement.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondent’s counsel contends that the disciplinary authority could not rely on uncharged earlier misconduct; the Administrative Tribunal’s remand was appropriate to consider totality including past conduct. The absence on earlier occasions, not being charged, should not be invoked to justify a harsher penalty. The court should not substitute its view for the disciplinary authority without clear error and fairness requires focusing on the charged facts.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Mysore v. V.K. Manche Gowda	[1964] 4 SCR 540	Distinguished	The present Court distinguishes this prior decision, noting there is no hard-and-fast rule excluding consideration of earlier misconduct; the current case finds that habitual absence can justify harsher punishment even if not all earlier conduct was charged.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS. _v._ MOHD. TAHERALI OCTOBER 9, 2007 # [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] "' _Service Law:_ _Disciplinary proceedings-Quantum ofpunishment-Police_ C _Constable-Unauthorised absence from Election Bandobust DutyCharge for offence of desertion proved-Disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement observing that it was not the solitary instance and delinquent had also been earlier found guilty of desertion-Administrative Tribunal remitting matter back_ D _to disciplinary authority for re-consideration only on question of punishment-Order affirmed by High Court-HELD: Absence from Election Bandobust (security arrangements) Duty was a very serious lapse on the part of delinquent and penalty of compulsory retirement was rightly imposed-Even ignoring earlier absence, charge of absence for 21 days by member of disciplined force having been_ E _proved, is sufficient to justify his compulsory retirement-Orders of Tribunal and High Court remitting the matter back for reconsideration on question of punishment set aside._ _State of Mysore_ v. _V.K. Manche Gowda,_ [1964] 4 SCR 540, F cited. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2043 of2007. From the Judgment and final Order dated 9.3.2005 of the High G Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2004. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants. 929 , **)r-** 930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. . A Promila for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by ## **ORDER** B We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 9 .3 .2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhm Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal whereby the C Administrative Tribunal remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for consideration of the punishment imposed in the matter. Hence the present appeal filed the State of A.P. It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts. Suffice it to say D that the incumbent was a police Constable at Alwal (Halia) P.S. and he was detailed for election duty at Cuddapah Election Bandobusth duty along with other PS men with instructions to report before SDPO Miryalguda, but he did not report for duty on 2nd September, 1999 along with other PS men before SDPO Miryalguda and absented himself E unauthorisedly without leave or permission with effect from 2nd September, 1999. Therefore, he was charged for the offence of desertion. The C.I. of Police, Miryalguda was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. The respondent did not file any written representation of defence in response to the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the F Inquiry Officer held an Inquiry and found him guilty and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and the Superintendent of Police on receipt of the same, sent a copy of that report to the respondent but he did not file any written representation of defence in response to that report. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police concluded that the respondent has no explanation to the charges levelled against him. G It was also recorded that this is not a solitary incidence. The respondent has also earlier been found to be guilty of desertion on a couple of occassions. Hence the S.P. imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. This was challenged before the Admir1istrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal did not interfere H GOVERNMENT OF A.P. _v._ MOHD. TAHERALI 931 with the finding of the report of the Inquiry Officer but remitted the A matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the question of punishment. Aggrieved by that order, the State Government filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Henche the present appeal. B It is an admitted position that the respondent was appointed on election duty but he absented himself from election duty. It seems that the respondent did not consider the election duty to be an important business which is very important for the whole nation. The respondent was appointed on election duty and was deputed to take security C arrangement but absented himself from duty. This is a very serious lapse on the part of the respondent. The police force is a disciplined force and the respondent. The police force is a disciplined force and _the_ respondent was detailed for such an important duty of election. He absented himself from election duty. Such kind of serious lapse cannot D be treated lightly. It is a very important function and ifthe incumbent avoided the duty of election, he cannot escape from the liability of the penalty of compulsory retirement. We fail to understand the reason for the Administrative Tribunal or for the High Court to have remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent. E Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in fact, the disciplinary authority while passing the order has taken into consideration the earlier absence of the respondent from the duty. He submitted that this could not have been taken into consideration as F the respondent was not aware about these incidents and those were not the part of the charges levelled against him. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the judgme_nt of this Court titled _State of Mysore_ v. _VK. Manche Gowda,_ reported in [1964] 4 SCR 540 but in the present case we G are satisfied that in fact the respondent deliberately absented himself from duty and did not offer any explanation for his absence from election duty. It is not the respondent's first absence. He also absented himself from duty on earlier occassions also. In our opinion there can be no hard and fast rule that merely because the earlier misconduct H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R. 932 - A has not been mentioned in the chargesheet it cannot be taken into consideration by the punishing authority. Consideration of the earlier misconduct is often only to reinforce the opinion of the said authority. The police force is a disciplined force and if the respondent is a habitual absentee then there is no reason to ignore this fact at the time of imposing - B penalty. Moreover, even ignoring the earlier absence, in our opinion, the absence of21 days by a member of disciplined force is sufficient to justify his compulsory retirement. - Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the - view that the view taken by the High Court as well as by the Administrative - C Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as well as of the Administrative Tribunal and confirm the order of compulsory retirement for the serious lapse on the part of the respondent. D This appeal is accordingly, allowed. No order as the Costs. RP. Appeal allowed.