‘Mercy begins where legal rights end’: Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds head constable’s compulsory retirement

‘Mercy begins where legal rights end’

• In the legal concept, mercy means the imposition of a lesser punishment than the law allows. 
• The mercy powers are extraordinary for the Constitution, and something important should be at stake to allow the executive to set aside statutory appeals.
• Considering the same, the court pointed out that mercy has an inherent value, which fits that prescription. 
• A delinquent person has no legal right even to have his case considered by the home secretary in connection with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. 
• An order passed in a mercy petition is not ordinarily subject to judicial review since mercy is not a matter of legal rights, but it begins where legal rights end. 

• A person who shows mercy decides that a particular punishment would be appropriate or just and then decides to exact a punishment of less severity than the appropriate or just one. 
• Once the petitioner submitted a mercy petition before the state government and the punishment was modified by accepting his prayer, the petitioner should be satisfied with the relief that he was able to obtain in the mercy petition. 
• The petitioner had accepted the outcome of the mercy petition ordered in September 2007 and, since then, has been receiving a pension based on the modified order of compulsory retirement in the mercy petition.
• The petitioner was unable to point out any statutory provision or regulation under which a mercy petition is prescribed in the present petition. 
• When the state government itself has shown mercy to the accused by imposing a lesser punishment, the present petition is dismissed as it is devoid of substance. 
• The petitioner does not have any fundamental right to challenge the order since the state government has already adopted a lenient view and converted the order of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement.

Parties submission before court

• The state’s counsel, Advocate General B M Patel, argued that the state government had adopted a lenient view and converted the order of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. 
• It is further submitted that, as per the relevant laws, the appointing authority up to the rank of head constable is the senior superintendent of police or superintendent of police, and therefore, the petitioner’s argument that the superintendent of police had no jurisdiction to pass the order of punishment against him is not admissible. 
• On the contrary, the petitioner’s counsel, advocate Alok Katare, argued that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the deputy inspector general of police (DIG), who issued the appointment order. 
• It is further argued that the power to inflict a major punishment is vested with the appointing authority, and the superintendent of police has no power to issue the order of dismissal. 

Promotion, dismissal, compulsory retirement

• It was claimed that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of constable in 1981.
• Subsequently, after qualifying the departmental examination petitioner was promoted to the post of head constable in 1987, which was issued by the DIG. 
• After a certain time, a complaint was made against the petitioner, and the additional superintendent of police was directed to hold fact finding inquiry/ preliminary inquiry against him. 
• Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner, and he replied to the same.

• Following the inquiry, the inquiry officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and submitted the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority, which issued a show-cause notice to him. 
• Thereafter, the superintendent of police passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the inspector general of police (IG), which was rejected in October 2002. 
• Aggrieved by this decision of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed a mercy appeal before the state government, which was partly allowed by modifying the earlier punishment and converting the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement.