Back
2010 (5) Supreme 432
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
Charanjit Lamba — Appellant
versus
Commanding Officer, Southern Command & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1027 of 2002
Decided on : 6-07-2010
Doctrine of Proportionality-The punishment imposed upon a delinquent should commensurate to the nature and generally of misconduct is not only a requirement of fairness, objectivity,and non-discriminatory treatment which even those form quality of a misdemeanour are entitled to claim but same is recognized as being a part of Article 14 of Constitution-Quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is something that rests primarily with disciplinary authority- The jurisdiction of a Writ Court or Administrative Tribunal for that matter is limited to finding out whether the punishment is so outrageously disproportionate as to be suggestive of lack of good faith-What is clear is that while judicially reviewing an order of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee the Writ Court would not assume the role of an appellate authority- It would not impose a lesser punishment merely because it considers the same to be more reasonable than what disciplinary authority has imposed- It is only in cases where the punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of charge that no reasonable person placed in the position of the disciplinary authority could have imposed such a punishment that a Writ Court may step in to interfere with the same. (Para 15)
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeal has been filed against order passed by High Court whereby Writ Petition filed by appellant had been dismissed and order of dismissal from service on proved misconduct was affirmed.Plea of appellant that order of dismissal of appellant from service was in the facts and circumstances of case disproportionate to the gravity of charges.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that while judicially reviewing an order of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee Writ Court would not assume role of an appellate authority. It would not impose a lesser punishment merely because it considers the same to be more reasonable than what disciplinary authority has imposed. It is only in cases where punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of charge that no reasonable person placed in the position of the disciplinary authority could have imposed such a punishment that a Writ Court may step in to interfere with the same. Hence High Court ought not have interfered with the sentence imposed upon the appellant on doctrine of proportionality in the instant case. Appellant was holding the rank of a Major in Indian Army at the time he committed the misconduct alleged and proved against him.As an officer of disciplined force like Army he was expected to maintain the highest standard of honesty and conduct and forebear from doing anything that could be termed as unbecoming of anyone holding that rank and office. Making a false claim for payment of transport charges of household luggage and car to Chandigarh was a serious matter bordering on moral turpitude.Breach of the rule requiring him to clear his electricity dues upon his transfer from the place of his posting was also not credit worthy for an officer. The competent authority was therefore justified in taking the view that the nature of the misconduct proved against appellant called for a suitable punishment. Inasmuch as the punishment chosen was dismissal from service, competent authority, did not take an outrageously absurd view of the matter. Appeal was held liable to be dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - Appellant charged under Army Act Section 52(f) and Section 45 for misconduct and unbecoming; punishment of dismissal from service upheld. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Judicial review principle: Writ Court does not act as appellate authority; may intervene only if punishment is outrageously disproportionate to gravity of misconduct. (!) (!) - Doctrine of proportionality as ground for review; High Court erred in interfering with disciplinary punishment. (!) (!) (!) - Facts: appellant falsely claimed transport charges; default on electricity bill; findings of GCM and confirmation by authorities; overall punishment deemed not outrageously disproportionate. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Cited precedents establishing proportionality and judicial review standards (Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Thakur, Hind Construction, M.P. Gangadharan, etc.). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
T.S. Thakur, J. —
1.This appeal by special leave arises out of an order dated 15th September, 1998 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay whereby Criminal Writ Petition No.489 of 1997 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the order of dismissal from service on proved misconduct affirmed. The factual matrix giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and his eventual dismissal from service has been set out by the High Court in the order under appeal. We need not, therefore, re-count the same over again. Suffice it to say that the appellant who at the relevant time was serving as a Major in the Indian Army was consequent upon a finding recorded against him in a Court of Inquiry brought up for trial before a General Court Martial (GCM for short) on the following two distinct charges:
FIRST CHARGE ARMY ACT SECTION 52(f).
SUCH AN OFFENCE AS IS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (f) OF SECTION 52 OF THE ARMY ACT, WITH INTENT TO CAUSE WRONGFUL LOSS TO A PERSON
In that he, at field on 30th Jul 92, with intent to cause wrongful gain to himself, improperly claimed Rs.16,589.30 (Rs. Sixteen thousand five hundred eighty nine and paise thirty only) from CDA (Q) Pune on account of moving his household luggage and car to Chandigarh, well knowing that he was legally not entitled to the same.
SECOND CHARGE, ARMY ACT SECTION 45 BEING AN OFFICER BEHAVING IN A MANNER UNBECOMING HIS POSITION AND THE CHARACTER EXPECTED OF HIM
In that he, at Pune, between 03 Sep 92 and Jun 93, improperly failed to pay the final electricity bill dated 03 Sep 92 amounting to Rs.8132.35 (Rs. eight thousand one hundred thirty two and paise thirty five only) to Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) in respect of H No.12-B Kohun Road, Pune-1 which was allotted to him.”
2.Evidence adduced before the GCM eventually led to the appellant being held guilty for improperly claiming Rs.16,589.30 on account of transfer of his household luggage and car to Chandigarh. The GCM found that the family of the appellant had continued to occupy government accommodation at Pune even after his posting to the field area and that the agency who is alleged to have transported the luggage and the car of the appellant did not exist at the given address. The evidence given by the appellant in his defence was also found by the GCM to be unreliable on account of material contradictions in the deposition of the defence witnesses. The GCM on proof of the said charge sentenced him to forfeiture of ten years past service for purposes of pension. In so far as the second charge, viz. non-payment of electricity bill was concerned, the GCM declared the appellant not guilty. In its opinion the appellant had never refused to pay the electricity bill which was at any rate a matter between him and the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The GCM took the view that the default of the petitioner could not be termed as conduct unbecoming of an official subject to the Army Act to call for any penal action.
3.Aggrieved by the findings and the sentence awarded to him by the GCM the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Officer Commanding, Maharashtra and Gujarat Area (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GOC M & G Area’) who happened to be the confirming authority also. The GOC M & G Area, however, took the view that the sentence awarded to the appellant on the first charge was lenient inasmuch as the offence committed by the appellant was serious and involved moral turpitude. It also noted that the appellant had past convictions to his credit which ought to be kept in view. The finding recorded by the GCM in regard to the second charge framed against the appellant was also found to be untenable by GOC M & G Area as according to him the conduct of the appellant fell within the ambit of Section 4E of the Army Act which made his behaviour unbecoming of an officer. The GOC M & G Area accordingly remanded the matter back to the GCM for re-consideration on the question of sentence to be aw
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
