1. Police constable dismissed from service for remaining on a one-day hunger strike to oppose a transfer. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 407
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : S.B.Majmudar
Ram Avtar Singh
Versus
State Public Service Tribunal
Case No. : 1821 of 1998
Date of Decision : 3/30/98
The court held that dismissing a police constable from service for a one-day hunger strike to oppose a transfer is grossly disproportionate. Punishment in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct to ensure the ends of justice are met.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Action - Proportionality of Punishment - Punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on a police constable for remaining on hunger strike for one day to oppose transfer is grossly disproportionate - Interest of justice served by setting aside dismissal and ordering reinstatement with partial back wages, subject to a written apology and an undertaking to accept future transfers. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
A police constable was dismissed from service on the grounds that he had remained on a hunger strike for one day to oppose his transfer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that remaining absent for one day on a hunger strike to oppose a transfer did not justify the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. The court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, along with 50% back wages, provided the employee files a written apology and undertakes to be transferred to any place ordered by the competent authority.
Issues: Whether the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on a police constable for remaining on a hunger strike for one day is grossly disproportionate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct of a one-day hunger strike; therefore, the punishment should be modified to reinstatement with conditions to meet the ends of justice.
Result: Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service for a one-day hunger strike is grossly disproportionate. (Para 3 )
3. Absence for one day on hunger strike to oppose transfer does not warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. (Para 4 )
4. Punishment for misconduct must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense; dismissal is disproportionate for a single day's absence on hunger strike. (Para 4 )
5. Dismissal set aside; appellant reinstated with continuity of service, consequential benefits, and partial back wages, subject to apology and transfer undertaking. (Para 4 )
6. Is dismissal from service a proportionate punishment for a one-day hunger strike to oppose a transfer?
No, the court held that remaining absent for one day on a hunger strike to oppose a transfer does not justify the punishment of dismissal from service. (Para 4 )
7. What conditions may a court impose when reinstating an employee after setting aside a disproportionate dismissal?
The court may require the employee to file a written apology, undertake to comply with future transfer orders, and receive a warning to maintain discipline in the future. (Para 4 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) RESPONDENT 1 is a pro forma respondent. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the appeal was heard finally.
(3) THE short question is whether the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the appellant - a police constable, on the ground that he had remained on hunger strike for one day is grossly disproportionate or not. Only on this short point, notice was issued on the special leave petition which has now culminated into this appeal on grant of special leave.
(4) IN our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that he remained absent for one day on hunger strike for opposing his transfer it could not have been said that it required the punishment of dismissal from service. Consequently, in our view, interest of justice will be served if the order of dismissal is set aside and instead the appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service with only 50 per cent of back wages as we are told that since 1991 till date, he is out of a job. The appellant shall also file a written apology for what he had done on the fateful day and must undertake to be transferred to any place to which he is ordered to be transferred by the competent authority. The appellant shall also be warned to behave in a more disciplined manner in future. The aforesaid order of punishment, in our view meets the ends of justice. The appellant shall report to the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur under whom he was working prior to his dismissal and thereafter he will be subjected to any further orders of transfer, if any. The appellant will be reinstated with continuity of service and with all other a consequential benefits. 50% back wages shall be paid to the appellant in six weeks of his reporting for duty. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
