2013 Supreme(SC) 937

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, A.K.Sikri, JJ.
Deputy Commissioner, KVS & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
J. Hussain – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8948/2013 (arising out of the SLP (Civil) No. 18271 of 2006)
Decided On : 4-10-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Entering the school premises in working hours i.e. 11.30 a.m. in an inebriated condition and thereafter forcibly entering into the Principal's room would constitute a serious misconduct. Penalty of removal for such a misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate.
The Court can only refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate view by imposing lesser punishment, rather than directing itself the exact nature of penalty in a given case.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14- Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965- Rule 14-Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964- Rule 20-Disciplinary action- Amount of punishment- Doctrine of proportionality- When the charge proved, as happened in the instance case, it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of charge. The Disciplinary Authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. Host of factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist. The order of the Appellate Authority while having a re-look of the case would, obviously, examine as to whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is reasonable or not. If the Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the case warrants lesser penalty, it can reduce the penalty so imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Such a power which vests with the Appellate Authority departmentally is ordinarily not available to the Court or a Tribunal. The Court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts. (Para 6)

        Departmental proceedings-Punishment-Scope of judicial review- In exercise of power of judicial review, however, the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the opinion of the Court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities. (Para 6)

        Departmental proceedings-Punishment-Principle of proportionality- Doctrine of Wednesbury Rule- When the punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, principle of proportionality comes into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with doctrine of Wednesbury Rule of reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charge that it shocks the conscience of the Court and the Court is forced to believe that it is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. (Para 7)

        Departmental proceedings-Punishment-Judicial review- Court cannot prescribe punishment- Moreover, while interfering therewith, the High Court has itself prescribed the punishment which, according to it, "would meet the ends of justice", little realizing that the Court cannot act a disciplinary authority and impose a particular penalty. Even in those cases where it is found that the punishment is disproportionate to the nature of charge, the Court can only refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate view by imposing lesser punishment, rather than directing itself the exact nature of penalty in a given case. (Para 9)

        Penalty of removal for such a misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate. It does not seem to be unreasonable and does not shock the conscience of the Court. Though it does not appear to be excessive either, but even if it were to be so, merely because the Court feels that penalty should have been lighter than the one imposed, by itself is not a ground to interfere with the discretion of the disciplinary authorities. The penalty should not only be excessive but disproportionate as well, that too the extent that it shocks the conscience of the Court and the Court is forced to find it as totally unreasonable and arbitrary thereby offending the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is stated at the cost of the repetition that discretion lies with the disciplinary/appellate authority to impose a particular penalty keeping in view the nature and gravity of charge. Once, it is found that the penalty is not shockingly disproportionate, merely because in the opinion of the Court lesser punishment could have been more justified, cannot be a reason to interfere with the said penalty. (Para 11)

        Departmental Proceeding-Penalty of removal from service-Mitigating circumstances- The High Court has also mentioned in the impugned order that the respondent is a married man with family consisting of number of dependents and is suffering hardship because of the said "economic capital punishment". However, such mitigating circumstances are to be looked into by the departmental authorities. It was not even pleaded before them and is an after effect of the penalty. In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot a ground for the Court to interdict with the penalty. (Para 11)

       Facts of the case :

        The respondent, when the respondent was in a fully drunken state, had forcibly entered into the office of Principal of Kendriya Vidayala Sangthan where he was posted and working as Upper Division Clerk. He was served with a charge memo under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Since the respondent had admitted the charge, it was felt that in view thereof, no regular enquiry was needed and on the basis of admission, the orders were passed, imposing the penalty of 'removal' from the service for the said misconduct. Appeals filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and, the Central Administrative Tribunal were dismissed. The High Court has found the penalty of removal from service to be disproportionate to the nature and gravity of his misconduct. The High Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent into service with continuity of service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is, further, directed that the respondent would not be entitled to two annual increments without any cumulative effect and no back wages for the intervening period shall be admissible to him. According to the High Court, the aforesaid penalty, instead of removal, would meet the ends of justice.

       Findings of the Court :

        The respondent employee had gone to the place of work in a fully drunken state. Going to the place of work under the influence of alcohol during working hours (it was 11.30 a.m.) would itself be a serious act of misconduct. What compounds the gravity of delinquency is that the place of work is not any commercial establishment but a school i.e. temple of learning. Entering the school premises in working hours i.e. 11.30 a.m. in an inebriated condition and thereafter forcibly entering into the Principal's room would constitute a serious misconduct. Penalty of removal for such a misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate.

       Result : Appeal allowed.