2007 Supreme(SC) 1105

2007(6) Supreme 521
Supreme Court of india
(From Delhi High Court)
G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Union of India & another — Petitioner
versus
S.S. Ahluwalia — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 4247 of 2006
Decided on : 24-08-2007

important points
Reinstatement can be ordered only if the court finds that order of dismissal or removal is found to be illegal.
Punishments should not be interfered with unless they are shockingly disproportionate to charges proved.

Headnote:(a)Service Law – Voluntary retirement – Respondent applying for V.R. from 1.7.1993, petition accepted on 23.2.1994 and respondent relieved on 2.3.1994 – As such there was not much delay and so no infirmity.(Para 6)

       (b)Service Law – Reinstatement – Order for reinstatement can be passed if an employee is dismissed or removed from service after disciplinary proceedings and said dismissal or removal is found to be illegal by a court of law – That not being the case, High Court erred in passing order of reinstatement merely because there was a little delay in accepting the application for V.R. and relieving the respondent. (Para 6)

       (c)Service Law – Punishment – Quantum of – The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved, in which case the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment – In an appropriate case, however, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty – Instantly, penalty imposed being very small, there was hardly any occasion for the High Court to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the Competent Authority.(Para 7)

       Facts of the case:

       S.S. Ahluwalia joined the Indian Army on 28.6.1965 as Commissioned Officer. In the year 1973 he was relieved from the army and he joined Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The respondent moved an application under Rule 43(d)(i) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 1.7.1993. The application moved by the respondent was rejected on 12.7.1993. He gave representations on 30.7.1993 and 10.8.1993 for re-examination of his case and to accord sanction for his voluntary retirement. On reconsideration of the matter the appellants accepted the prayer made by the respondent on 23.2.1994 subject to the condition that the proceedings for imposing major penalty initiated against him vide memo dated 4.2.1994 shall continue. The respondent submitted his representation on 12.9.1994 raising various pleas and prayed for withdrawal of the charge-sheet and proceedings for imposition of major penalty. In the inquiry proceedings the respondent filed written statement of defence on 21.2.1994. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting a full inquiry and recording evidence, held that charge No. I was partly proved and charges Nos. II, III and IV were fully proved. The case of the respondent was referred to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), who, after examination of the material on record, advised that the ends of justice would be met in case a penalty of 10% deduction from his basic pension for one year was imposed. The case was then referred to Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for approval of the Competent Authority for acceptance of the advice of the UPSC and award of punishment. The Competent Authority then imposed punishment of 10% deduction from his pension for a period of one year.

       After the application of the respondent for his voluntary retirement had been accepted by order dated 23.2.1994 he was actually relieved on 2.3.1994. He made request for release of his retiral benefits but he was informed by communication dated 12.5.1995 that till the proceedings of departmental inquiry were concluded his retiral benefits could not be released.

       The respondent then filed three writ petitions in the Delhi High Court praying for quashing of the order dated 12.5.1995 and consequential release of the retiral benefits like pension, commuted pension, gratuity along with interest @ 14% per annum with effect from 1.7.1993 till the date of actual payment and also for a direction to the appellants to treat the respondent as deemed to have voluntarily retired with effect from 1.7.1993 in accordance with Rule 43(d)(i) of the Rules. On 5.9.1998 the respondent moved an amendment application for amending the Writ Petition No. 637 of 1996 and in this a prayer was made that the order dated 23.2.1994 retiring the respondent be quashed and the appellants be directed to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits. Writ Petition was allowed. The appellants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 11.1.2006. It is these orders which are subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.

       Findings of the Court:

       This not being a case of dismissal or removal, reinstatement was not warranted.

       Punishment being very small that too on partly proved charges should not have been interfered with.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.