Court dismisses the writ petition challenging the conversion of dismissal to compulsory retirement, reiterating that mercy petitions are not a legal right.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Babulal Deewan challenging the State Government's decision to convert his dismissal from service into compulsory retirement as a result of a mercy petition. The court emphasized that mercy petitions are acts of grace and not subject to judicial review as a matter of legal right.
The case, presided over by Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat, dealt with the petitioner's appeal against the orders of dismissal issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority. Deewan had initially been dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry which found him guilty of misconduct. Upon his appeal, the State Government, showing leniency, modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement.
The court, while reiterating legal principles, stated that mercy begins where legal rights end. It highlighted that there is no statutory provision under the Police Regulations for filing a mercy petition, and once such a petition is filed and decided upon, the petitioner should be content with the outcome. The court cited previous judgments, reinforcing that judicial review in such matters is limited to ensuring that the decision is not shocking to the conscience of the court or irrational.
The petitioner argued that the Superintendent of Police was not his appointing authority and thus lacked the jurisdiction to dismiss him. However, the court, referencing the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, clarified that the Superintendent of Police indeed had the authority to pass such an order.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner, having accepted the benefits of the mercy petition, including receiving a pension, could not now challenge the order. The judgment aligns with the legal understanding that mercy is an executive discretion and is not a matter for judicial intervention unless fundamental rights are violated.
Bottom Line:
Mercy petitions are not a matter of legal right. Mercy begins where legal rights end, and a delinquent person has no statutory right to challenge an order passed in a mercy petition.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966
Babulal Deewan v. State of M.P., (Madhya Pradesh)(Gwalior) : Law Finder Doc id # 2855998
