2021 Supreme(SC) 682

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6723 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 34160 OF 2016)
DECIDED ON : 11-11-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is disciplinary authority, or appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide nature of punishment to be given to delinquent employee – Keeping in view seriousness of misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for Courts to assume and usurp function of disciplinary authority.
(2) Scope of judicial review on quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope – It is only when penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to nature of misconduct that Courts would frown upon.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Punishment – Scope of judicial interference – It is disciplinary authority, or appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide nature of punishment to be given to delinquent employee – Keeping in view seriousness of misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for Courts to assume and usurp function of disciplinary authority – Even in cases where punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to conscience of Court, normally, disciplinary authority or appellate authority should be directed to reconsider question of imposition of penalty – Scope of judicial review on quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope – It is only when penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to nature of misconduct that Courts would frown upon – Even in such a case, after setting aside penalty order, it is to be left to disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for Court to substitute its decision by prescribing quantum of punishment – However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where court might to shorten litigation may think of substituting its own view as to quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons. (Paras 22 and 23)

(B) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – Section 11(1) – Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – Rule 27 – {Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Part IV} – Imposition of punishment – Scope of judicial interference – Allegation of instituting false criminal charges of sexual harassment against Doctor-complainant – Removal and dismissal from service stand on same footing and both terminate relationship of employer/employee – Only difference between the two is that in case of dismissal, it precludes employee from seeking future employment in Government while in case of removal, he is not disqualified from any future employment – Respondent has been punished with penalty of removal from service after charges levelled against him stood proved by disciplinary authority in a departmental inquiry held against him after going through procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of Rules 1955 – Such nature of minor punishment of removal from service could be in addition to dismissal as being provided under Section 11 of Act 1949 – Nature of allegations against respondent are indeed grave in nature as respondent not only threatened Doctor-complainant but has misbehaved and abused and injured him and made false allegations against him of sexual harassment to his wife – Section 11 of Act 1949 has been completely overlooked by High Court while examining as to whether punishment of removal from service could be inflicted in lieu of or in addition to dismissal from service to member of force, if misconduct stands proved in course of disciplinary inquiry and after it was confirmed by High Court under impugned judgment – High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of authority – What punishment was required to be imposed, in facts and circumstances of case, was a matter which fell exclusively within jurisdiction of competent authority and interference made by High Court is in a cavalier manner while recording finding of penalty to be disproportionate without taking into consideration seriousness of misconduct committed by respondent which is unpardonable and not sustainable in law – impugned judgment of High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 29 and 30)

Facts of the case:

Union of India, in the instant appeal, has challenged judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi substituting the penalty of removal from service inflicted on the respondent after holding disciplinary inquiry as provided under Rule 27 of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 with confinement of respondent from 1.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in quarter guard jail without noticing mandate of the nature of punishments indicated under Section 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.

Findings of Court:

High Court fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could lawfully be imposed by departmental authorities for his proven misconduct.

Result : Appeal allowed.