IMPORTANT POINT
In service matter unless the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Punishment of removal from service — Respondent, a store attendant in Bank Note Press was charge sheeted that he got married for second time in Oct. 1974 — Enquiry Officer recorded findings in favour of respondent — Disciplinary authority different with findings and holding respondent guilty of misconduct imposed punishment of removal — Appellate Authority converted punishment of removal into one of compulsory retirement — Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed application was barred by limitation — High Court remanded matter to appellate authority for reconsideration of quantum of punishment taking a view that alleged second marriage was not such a misconduct which warranted compulsory retirement — Appeal — Court should not interfere with administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to conscience of Court — Scope of judicial review is limited to deficiency in decision making process and not the decision — High Court did not indicate why punishment was considered disproportionate and why it considered the misconduct to be not serious — Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and that of appellate authority restored.
       Held : The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesburys case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. (Para 14)
       To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.(Para 15)
       The above position was recently reiterated in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Others v. Munna Lal Jain (2005 (10) SCC 84).(Para 16)
       The High Court has not kept the correct position in view. It has not even indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate and why it considered the misconduct to be not serious. (Para 17)
       The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Appellate Authority, the operative part of which has been quoted above, is restored. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was directed to consider the matter afresh with regard to the quantum of punishment.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent was a Store Attendant in the Bank Note Press, District Dewas (M.P). A charge-sheet was issued against him on the foundation that though he had got married with one Parvathibai in the year 1973, while filling up the attestation form on 16.3.1974, he did not show her name as his wife. It was further alleged that he got married for the second time in October, 1974 with one Ushabai. On the basis of this non-disclosure, which, authorities considered to be a misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. It is to be noted that the non-disclosure came to the notice of the authorities when Parvathibai made a complaint about the second marriage. The enquiry was conducted under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short the Rules). The Enquiry Officer recorded findings in favour of the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and came to hold that second marriage had in fact been performed and accordingly it issued show cause notice to the respondent and eventually came to hold that the respondent was guilty of misconduct and imposed the punishment of removal by order dated 2.4.1996.

4. The respondent being aggrieved preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority converted the punishment of removal into one of compulsory retirement. The said order was passed on 15.4.1997.

5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (in short the Tribunal) on 13.12.1998. The Tribunal came to hold that the application was barred by limitation and accordingly declined to entertain the same. The Tribunal recorded a finding that no application for condonation of delay has been filed.

6. Assailing order passed by the Tribunal a Writ application was filed. It was submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously held that there was no application for condonation of delay. This is not one of those cases where cognizance cannot be taken by the Tribunal under Section 21(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short the Tribunal Act). It was, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and dealt with the matter on merits. It was further submitted that the quantum of punishment awarded did not commensurate with the alleged misconduct.

7. The appellants took the stand that the punishment awarded was rather liberal and no interference was called for.

8. The High Court was of the view that ordinarily it would have remanded the matter to Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits but it was of the view that this is a fit case where the matter should be remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration with regard to the quantum of punishment. The only basis for coming to the conclusion that the complaint was made by the wife about the alleged second marriage belatedly, and this is not such a misconduct which warrants compulsory retirement before his superannuation.

9. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has clearly lost sight of the scope for interference with the quantum of punishment.

10. In response, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment.

11. It is to be noted that the Appellate Authority had noted as follows:-

"Although, after careful consideration of 22 years services rendered by him in Bank Note Press, the undersigned as an Appellate Authority has cordially considered the appeal using the powers conferred under Rule 27 of Cent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 729

IMPORTANT POINTIn service matter unless the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
In service matter unless the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference.