1. Misappropriation of government wheat stock by an official — disciplinary proceedings — punishment of reversion in rank. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 696
1997(4) Supreme 315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Narinder Singh Nirdosh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 273 of 1988
Decided on 10-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.S. Gujral, Sr. Advocate, Ms. J.S. Wad, Manoj Wad and Abraham, N.A. Advocates.
For the Respondent : J.D. Jain, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authority on the basis of magnitude of misconduct is empowered to impose punishment appropriate to the situation.
Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Misconduct of misappropriation-Punishment of reduction of rank of Inspector to that of sub-Inspector-High Court was unjustified in interfering with punishment of reversion-Punishment of reversion was too lenient for misconduct in question which was a grave one. (Paras 3 and 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
disciplinary proceedings
- quantum of punishment (Para 4)
-
disciplinary proceedings
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the punishment of reversion in rank was disproportionate to the proven misconduct of misappropriation of wheat stock. (Para 3 )
3. The disciplinary authority is empowered to impose punishment based on the magnitude of misconduct; reversion is lenient given the gravity of the offense. (Para 4 )
4. Disciplinary authorities are empowered to impose punishments appropriate to the magnitude of the misconduct, and courts should not interfere when the punishment is proportionate or lenient. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order reducing the punishment set aside. (Para 5 )
6. To what extent can a court interfere with the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority?
A court is unjustified in interfering with the punishment if the disciplinary authority has imposed a penalty appropriate to the magnitude of the misconduct, particularly when the punishment is considered lenient. (Para 4 )
7. What is the primary factor determining the appropriate punishment in disciplinary proceedings?
The nature of the punishment depends upon the magnitude of the misconduct committed by the employee. (Para 4 )
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 2968/87 dated 19.11.1987.
2. The few facts necessary for disposal of the case are that while the respondent was working as Inspector in the Punjab Civil Supplies Corporation, he was made incharge of the Wheat procured by the Government and weighment in that behalf. In 1980 while he was working in Patiala, he was found to have filled up the wheat bags with husk and thereby misappropriated huge stock of the wheat. Taking a lenient view the authorities stopped two increments after the enquiry and he was transferred to Gugha in Patiala District. Thereat also he repeated the misconduct. As a consequence, a chargesheet was served upon him on April 24, 1985. The charges levied against him read as under :
"(a) For connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh in replacement of new wheat of 1984-85 with 1557 bags of rejected wheat in godowns and for misappropriation and embazzlement of wheat stock.
(b) For misappropriation of 17 bales and 242 A Class bags in connivance with Shri Gurmail Singh Inspector.
(c) For misappropriation and embazzlement of 1292-3200 quintals wheat which was given in short by Shri Gurmail Singh while handing over charge, in connivance with Gurmail Singh.
Separate charge-sheet was given to Gurmail Singh."
3. After conducting the enquiry, instead of dismissing him from service, the authorities reduced his rank of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector which came to be challenged in the High Court. In the impugned order, the High Court has held that the punishment was disproportionate, though the misconduct was proved. Instead, he should he given stoppage of two increments. Calling that finding in question, this appeal came to be filed.
4. In view of the settled legal position that the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the magnitude of the misconduct, is empowered to impose the punishment appropriate to the situation, the High Court is unjustified in interfering with the punishment of reversion, as most lenient view was taken by the Government. The nature of the punishment depends upon the magnitude of the misconduct. Since the misconduct is question is a grave one and the punishment of reversion itself being a very very too lenient one, the High Court is wholly incorrect in reduring the punishment which is not at all warranted in law.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the respondent is not appearing, no costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******
