Important Point
An authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is bound to take into consideration all attending facts and circumstances of case before imposing an order of punishment.

Headnote:Service law – Conviction of respondent a peon u/s 323 r/w 34 IPC for assaulting one R and causing him injury – Imposition of one month’s simple imprisonment reduced to a fine of Rs. 500 only on appeal preferred by respondent – Termination of services of respondents in view of judgment of conviction passed against him in criminal case – Application there against by respondent – Allowed by Tribunal holding that punishment of removal form service was grossly excessive – Writ petition there against by appellants – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal - Attitude on part of appellant ex-facie appeared to be wholly unreasonable - Respondent had not committed any misconduct within meaning of provisions of Service Rules – Respondent was involved in a matter for causing simple injury to another person – Respondent was not even sent to prison - Only a sum of Rs.500/- was imposed upon him as fine - Rule 19 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which provides for special procedure in certain cases, to which reliance had been placed by appellants not appeared to be applicable in instant case - By reason of said provision, “the disciplinary authority had been empowered to consider circumstances of case where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge”, but same would not mean that irrespective of nature of case in which he was involved or punishment which had been imposed upon him, an order of dismissal must be passed - Such a construction was not warranted - An authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is bound to take into consideration all attending facts and circumstances of case before imposing an order of punishment - While exercising such power, disciplinary authority must act reasonably and fairly - Respondent occupied lowest rank of cadre - Respondent was merely a contingency peon - Continuation of his service in department would not bring a bad name to State – Respondent was not convicted for any act involving moral turpitude – Respondent was not punished for any heinous offence - Tribunal, rightly placed reliance upon decision of Court in Shankar Das vs. Union of India : and held that punishment of removal form service was grossly excessive – Appeal having no merit dismissed.(Paras 5 to 9)
       (1985) 2 SCC 358 relied upon.
       Doctrine of proportionality - Legal parameters of judicial review has undergone a change - Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by doctrine of proportionality. (Paras 12, 13, 16)
       (2006) 11 SCC 67; (2006) 3 SCC 276, AIR 2006 SC 2360, [2007] 4 All ER 177; [2007] 4 All ER 15; [2007] 2 All ER 273; [2007] 3 All ER 1007, R [2007] 3 WLR 922, (2007) 4 SCC 669, (1987) 4 SCC 611, (2006) 6 SCC 162 relied upon.
       Facts of the case:-
       1.Respondent a peon herein in the instant case was convicted u\s 323 r\w 34 IPC for assaulting one R and causing him injury. One month’s simple imprisonment was reduced to a fine of Rs. 500 only on appeal preferred by Respondent. Services of respondent was terminated in view of judgment of conviction passed against him in criminal case. Application there against by Respondent was allowed by Tribunal holding that punishment of removal form service was grossly excessive. Writ petition there against by appellants was dismissed by High Court.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court : –
       The Court held that attitude on part of appellant ex-facie appeared to be wholly unreasonable. Respondent had not committed any misconduct within meaning of provisions of Service Rules. Respondent was involved in a matter for causing simple injury to another person. Respondent was not even sent to prison. Only a sum of Rs.500/- was imposed upon him as fine. Rule 19 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which provides for special procedure in certain cases, to which reliance had been placed by appellants not appeared to be applicable in instant case. Such a construction was not warranted. An authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is bound to take into consideration all attending facts and circumstances of case before imposing an order of punishment. While exercising such power, disciplinary authority must act reasonably and fairly. Respondent occupied lowest rank of cadre. Respondent was merely a contingency peon. Continuation of his service in department would not have brought a bad name to State. Respondent was not convicted for any act involving moral turpitude. Respondent was not punished for any heinous offence. Tribunal, rightly placed reliance upon decision of Court in Shankar Das vs. Union of India: and held that punishment of removal form service was grossly excessive. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. –

1.Respondent was a Peon appointed in a Middle School. He is said to have assaulted one Ram Singh on 5th October, 1989. He was prosecuted for commission of the said offence and was convicted by a Court of Magistrate by a judgment dated 22nd July, 1992 under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. On an appeal preferred by him, the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 500/- only. A revision thereagainst was filed by the respondent herein before the High Court.

2.A show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him in view of the judgment of conviction passed against him in the said criminal case. By an order dated 25th November, 1993 his services were terminated by the Deputy Director, Vidisha. An appeal thereagainst was preferred by the respondent in terms of Madhya Pradesh State Services Act. However, no order was passed therein. A revision was filed by him before the Deputy Director, Public Education. During the pendency of the said revision application, his criminal revision petition filed before the High Court was dismissed. The prayer of the respondent that he be reinstated in service was rejected in terms of the order dated 11th January, 1994 passed by the Deputy Director, Public Education, Vidisha.

3.Respondent thereafter filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior. The Tribunal by an order dated 25th November, 2002 allowed the said application holding :-

“However, the applicant succeeds on the ground that the punishment of removal from service is grossly excessive because the punishment was only under section 323 IPC and the High Court has clarified that the punishment does not involve any moral turpitude every power vested in a public authority has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably. Respondents should have applied their mind to the penalty which should be appropriately be imposed in the circumstances of the case. Please see Shankar Das Vs. Union of India,1 (1985 2 SCC 358). This does not seem to have been done.”

A writ petition filed thereagainst by the appellants before the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

4.Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of he appellants, submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the Tribunal or the High Court could not have interfered with the quantum of punishment.

5.The case in hand appears to be a gross one. This Court is unable to appreciate the attitude on the part of the appellant herein which ex-facie appears to be wholly unreasonable. Respondent had not committed any misconduct within the meaning of the provisions of the Service Rules. He was involved in a matter for causing simple injury to another person. He was not even sent to prison. Only a sum of Rs.500/- was imposed upon him as fine.

6.Rule 19 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which provides for special procedure in certain cases, to which reliance has been placed by the appellants does not appear to be applicable in the instant case. The said Rule reads thus :-

“19.Special procedure in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18

(i)where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii)where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or

(iii)where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 231

2008(2) Supreme 51Supreme Court of indiaS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.State of M.P. and others — PetitionersversusHazarilal — RespondentAppeal (civil) 6498 of 2005Decided on : 12-02-2008

Important PointAn authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is bound to take into consideration all attending facts and circumstances of case before imposing an order of punishment.

Cases Referred (7)

2008(2) Supreme 51
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State of M.P. and others — Petitioners
versus
Hazarilal — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 6498 of 2005
Decided on : 12-02-2008

Important Point
An authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is bound to take into consideration all attending facts and circumstances of case before imposing an order of punishment.