Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Commissioner of Police & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sat Narayan Kaushik – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5186 of 2016) (@ SLP(c) ...CC 2113 of 2016)
Decided on : 17-2-2016
(b) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Misconduct on 26.02.2008 – Delinquent suspended on 22.06.2008 and dismissed on 02.07.2009 – High Court denying service benefits to delinquent from the date of dismissal – Not proper – Delinquent was not entitled to any benefit from the date of suspension. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
At the relevant time the respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) (Min.), was posted in HAG 8th Bn. DAP.
On 26.02.2008 at about 10.30 a.m. while Mr. B.P. Jain, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)/Security was briefing the staff regarding transportation of records and other articles of offices of 8th, 9th and 10th Bn. from Pitampura Lines to Main Security Lines, the respondent reported there. When ACP asked the respondent as to why he did not attend the office in time, he replied that he would not come before 10.15 a.m. and the ACP can take any action against him whatever he feels proper. The respondent then started misbehaving and gave a slap to the ACP in the presence of other office staff and left for the gallery calling the ACP by name.
The ACP brought the facts to the notice of Mr. Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP/Security (SG), who then ordered the respondent to appear before him on 27.02.2008. Mr. R.P. Tyagi, Sub-Inspector, Head Clerk, 8th Bn. accordingly informed the respondent to appear before Addl.DCP/Security(SG) but the respondent said that he was having blood pressure and, therefore, would not talk to anyone and went back home.
The respondent was suspended on 22.06.2008, which was followed by a departmental enquiry against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer, in his report, held the respondent guilty of the charges.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect to the respondent.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissed the O.A. filed by the appellant.
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition fild by the appellant and set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and instead punished the respondent with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service and also directed that the respondent shall not be entitled to any service benefits from 02.07.2009 till the date of order of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The delinquent should have been denied benefits from the date of suspension.
(a) Service law – Punishment – Quantum – Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court upholding the disciplinary proceeding and imposition of punishment – Interfering with quantum of punishment – Substituting punishment of dismissal by that of compulsory retirement – High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226, can interfere with quantum on consideration of relevant factors – No infirmity. (Para 21)
(b) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Misconduct on 26.02.2008 – Delinquent suspended on 22.06.2008 and dismissed on 02.07.2009 – High Court denying service benefits to delinquent from the date of dismissal – Not proper – Delinquent was not entitled to any benefit from the date of suspension. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
At the relevant time the respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) (Min.), was posted in HAG 8th Bn. DAP.
On 26.02.2008 at about 10.30 a.m. while Mr. B.P. Jain, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)/Security was briefing the staff regarding transportation of records and other articles of offices of 8th, 9th and 10th Bn. from Pitampura Lines to Main Security Lines, the respondent reported there. When ACP asked the respondent as to why he did not attend the office in time, he replied that he would not come before 10.15 a.m. and the ACP can take any action against him whatever he feels proper. The respondent then started misbehaving and gave a slap to the ACP in the presence of other office staff and left for the gallery calling the ACP by name.
The ACP brought the facts to the notice of Mr. Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP/Security (SG), who then ordered the respondent to appear before him on 27.02.2008. Mr. R.P. Tyagi, Sub-Inspector, Head Clerk, 8th Bn. accordingly informed the respondent to appear before Addl.DCP/Security(SG) but the respondent said that he was having blood pressure and, therefore, would not talk to anyone and went back home.
The respondent was suspended on 22.06.2008, which was followed by a departmental enquiry against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer, in his report, held the respondent guilty of the charges.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect to the respondent.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissed the O.A. filed by the appellant.
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition fild by the appellant and set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and instead punished the respondent with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service and also directed that the respondent shall not be entitled to any service benefits from 02.07.2009 till the date of order of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The delinquent should have been denied benefits from the date of suspension.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
There is a delay of 30 days in filing the special leave petition. Delay condoned. Issue notice. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/caveator. Since learned counsel for the respondent does not want to file the counter affidavit, we heard the matter finally with the consent of the parties.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, leave granted.
3. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (c) No. 2345 of 2015 whereby the High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order 05.12.2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi passed in O.A. No. 4349 of 2010 filed by the respondent.
4. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts:
5. The respondent was an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) (Min.). At the relevant time, the respondent was posted in HAG 8th Bn. DAP. On 26.02.2008 at about 10.30 a.m. while Mr. B.P. Jain, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)/Security was briefing the staff regarding transportation of records and other articles of offices of 8th, 9th and 10th Bn. from Pitampura Lines to Main Security Lines, the respondent reported there. When ACP asked the respondent as to why he did not attend the office in time, he replied that he would not come before 10.15 a.m. and the ACP can take any action against him whatever he feels proper. The respondent then started misbehaving and gave a slap to the ACP in the presence of other office staff and left for the gallery calling the ACP by name. The ACP brought the facts to the notice of Mr. Rishi Pal, Addl. DCP/Security (SG), who then ordered the respondent to appear before him on 27.02.2008. Mr. R.P. Tyagi, Sub-Inspector, Head Clerk, 8th Bn. accordingly informed the respondent to appear before Addl.DCP/Security(SG) but the respondent said that he was having blood pressure and, therefore, would not talk to anyone and went back home.
6. For the above said misconduct, the respondent was suspended on 22.06.2008, which was followed by a departmental enquiry against the respondent and a charge sheet was accordingly issued to the respondent on 08.07.2008. After examination of witnesses, the Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 28.11.2008, held the respondent guilty of the charges.
7. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 02.07.2009 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect to the respondent.
8. Against the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Police. By order dated 11.11.2009, the Joint Commissioner of Police rejected the appeal.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed original application being O.A. No. 4349 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal). By order dated 05.12.2014, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A.
10. Challenging the order of Tribunal, the respondent filed petition being W.P.(c) No. 2345 before the High Court. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 19.08.2015, partly allowed the petition and set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and instead punished the respondent with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service and also directed that the respondent shall not be entitled to any service benefits from 02.07.2009 till the date of order of the High Court. The operative part of the order of the High Court reads as under:
"20.......Therefore we are of the view that a considerable time period has elapsed and the petitioner is 53 years of age with family responsibilities. Petitioner has served his duties with utmost sincerity for a period of approximately 29 years with the blemish-free career. Therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and instead the pe
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
