Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1005
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
Ramanuj Pandey
Versus
The State of M.P. & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3406 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1019 of 2008)
Decided on : 08-05-2009
IMPORTANT POINT
Doctrine of proportionality permits judicial review only in appropriate cases.
Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – Doctrine of proportionality – Permits judicial review, but in appropriate cases. (Para 5)
AIR 1996 SC 484; (2006) 3 SCC 173 – Relied upon
(b) Service law – Punishment – Appellant detaining and booking a public servant under Lunacy Act without sufficient reason – Appellant’s act causing harassment to the victim and detrimental to the image of police department – Misconduct grave but not warranting removal from service – Punishment should be by way of a warning to others and not with vengeance – Punishment altered to compulsory retirement from date of his dismissal – Constitution of India – Article 136. (Para 7 to 9)
AIR 1989 SC 1137 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant was a Head Constable in MP police at relevant time. On the relevant date he apprehended one Laxmi Narain, Dozer Operator of Kolar Dam and registered a complaint against him under Section 13 of the Lunacy Act. In the complaint filed, appellant had stated that Laxmi Narain in an insane state of mind assaulted him and caused injuries.
On the other hand, son of Laxmi Narain filed a complaint and requested the authorities to conduct inquiry against the appellant.
After inquiry the appellant was removed from service.
The High Court dismissed appellant’s writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
H.L. Dattu, J.
Leave granted.
1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 2006 dated 22.11.2006. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, stating that the punishment of removal from service of the appellant cannot on the facts and circumstances of the case shocks the conscience of the Court.
2) The facts leading to this Special Leave Petition are: the appellant was appointed as a Constable in the service of M.P. Police on 1.11.1967 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable. On the relevant date i.e. 25.9.1991 while discharging his duties as Incharge, Outpost, Kolar Dam, Birpur appellant apprehended one Laxmi Narain, Dozer Operator of Kolar Dam and registered a complaint against him under Section 13 of the Lunacy Act. In the complaint filed, appellant had stated that Laxmi Narain in an insane state of mind assaulted him and caused injuries. On the other hand, son of Laxmi Narain filed a complaint and requested the authorities to conduct inquiry against the appellant. Inquiry was conducted and consequent thereto, a charge sheet was issued to the appellant and he was kept under suspension pending domestic enquiry proceedings. The appellant in his reply had denied all the charges. In the Departmental Inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police, Sehore on 7.5.1992, he has held the appellant guilty of the said charges and was removed from government services affirming that the appellant had done a very heinous act by detaining a public servant in police post without any reason, violating his fundamental rights. Appellant went before the High Court contending that no departmental inquiry was warranted in such matter and the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. The High Court dismissed the petition confirming the decision of the disciplinary authority. The appellant then went in appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that appellant being a Head Constable has apprehended Laxmi Narain and registered him under the Lunacy Act, although he was not a Lunatic, therefore, the punishment of removal from service of the appellant cannot on these facts be held to be one which shocks the conscience of the Court.
3) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4) Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant could not be held to have misused his position as Head Constable and not acted in good faith. He would also contend that the punishment awarded to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate and excessive. Learned Counsel would draw our attention to the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484, wherein this court held that:
"A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
5) In the case of Commr of Police v. Syed Hussain, (2006) 3 SCC 173, this Court observed that, it is one thing to say that order passed by the statutory authority is wholly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus liable to be set aside, but it
