2010 Supreme(SC) 375

2010 (3) Supreme 681
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and R. M. Lodha, JJ.
The Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli — Appellant
versus
Gulabhia M. Lad — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14428 of 2009)
Decided on : 28-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. While exercising power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority, and/or on appeal the Appellate Authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal.
2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and overlapping adducing of evidence, a joint enquiry may be conducted against all the delinquent officers but imposition of different punishment on proved charges may not be impermissible if the responsibilities and duties of the co-delinquents differ or where distinguishing features exist. In such a case, there would not be any question of selective or invidious discrimination

Headnote:Service Law-Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965- Rule 14 - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964- Rule 3- Respondent while functioning as Land Reforms Officer—I , was charged for misconduct- Two other employees, were also subjected to disciplinary enquiry in connection with illegal grant of occupancy rights of government land to five persons-Disciplanary Authority imposed a major penalty of removal from service on respondent and other two delinquents-Respondent filed departmental appeal against order of punishment but said appeal was dismissed - Insofar as the other two delinquents were concerned, their departmental appeals were partly allowed-On Challenge thereagainst Tribunal accepted the argument of respondent that he had been discriminated in the matter of imposition of punishment-Writ petition-Dismissed- Even though respondent and two other delinquents might have been found guilty in connection with same incident, i.e. illegal grant of occupancy rights in respect of government land to five persons but the charges against respondent and other two delinquents could not be said to be same or substantially similar- Tribunal failed to notice that respondent was holding an important position as Land Reforms Officer during the relevant period having been conferred with various powers and duties under the Regulations- As a Land Reforms Officer, respondent possessed official authority for grant of occupancy rights under the Regulations- The co-delinquents were only his subordinates and they carried out his instructions- In the facts and circumstances, respondent and two co-delinquents could not be said to have been similarly placed- Tribunal overlooked a very important aspect that there was, no similarity in award of punishment to the other two co-delinquents as well- On the facts found and conclusions recorded in enquiry report, the punishment of removal could not be said to be not commensurate with the misconduct proved against respondent and High Court ought to have interfered with order of Tribunal—Impugned order of High Court and that of Tribunal set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 13 to 18)

       Judicial Review-While exercising power of judicial review, High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority, and/or on appeal the Appellate Authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal- The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority is dependent on most of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to delinquent, responsibility of position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works- Ordinarily the Court or a Tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts. (Para 13)

       Joint Enquiry-Imposition of different punishment on co delinquents-Validity of-In a matter of imposition of punishment where joint disciplinary enquiry is held against more than one delinquent, the same or similarity of charges is not decisive but many factors may be vital in decision making- A single distinguishing feature in the nature of duties or degree of responsibility may make difference insofar as award of punishment is concerned-To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and overlapping adducing of evidence, a joint enquiry may be conducted against all delinquent officers but imposition of different punishment on proved charges may not be impermissible if the responsibilities and duties of the co-delinquents differ or where distinguishing features exist-In such a case, there would not be any question of selective or invidious discrimination. (Para 13)

       Facts of the Case :

       Respondent while functioning as Land Reforms Officer—I , was charged for misconduct herein in the instant case. Two other employees, were also subjected to disciplinary enquiry in connection with illegal grant of occupancy rights of government land to five persons. Disciplanary Authority imposed a major penalty of removal from service on respondent and other two delinquents. Respondent filed departmental appeal against order of punishment but said appeal was dismissed . Insofar as the other two delinquents were concerned, their departmental appeals were partly allowed.On Challengethereagainst Tribunal accepted the argument of respondent that he had been discriminated in the matter of imposition of punishment. Writ petition thereagainst was Dismissed.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Even though respondent and two other delinquents might have been found guilty in connection with same incident, i.e. illegal grant of occupancy rights in respect of government land to five persons but the charges against respondent and other two delinquents could not be said to be same or substantially similar. Tribunal failed to notice that respondent was holding an important position as Land Reforms Officer during the relevant period having been conferred with various powers and duties under the Regulations. As a Land Reforms Officer, respondent possessed official authority for grant of occupancy rights under the Regulations. The co-delinquents were only his subordinates and they carried out his instructions.In the facts and circumstances, respondent and two co-delinquents could not be said to have been similarly placed. Tribunal overlooked a very important aspect that there was, no similarity in award of punishment to the other two co-delinquents as well. On the facts found and conclusions recorded in enquiry report, the punishment of removal could not be said to be not commensurate with the misconduct proved against respondent and High Court ought to have interfered with order of Tribunal.Impugned order of High Court and that of Tribunal was set aside. Appeal was allowed.