Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Anil Kumar Upadhyay - Appellant
Versus
The Director General, SSB and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2707 of 2022
Decided on : 20-04-2022
(A) Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for disciplinary authority and jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution or of Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to applicability of ‘Wednesbury principles’ – When a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, scope of judicial review would remain limited. (Para 8)
(B) Shashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 – Section 43 – Removal from Service – Appellant was serving as a Head Constable (Ministerial) in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) – He was charged with indiscipline and misconduct leading to compromising security of occupants of Mahila Barrack – Appellant was imposed penalty of ‘removal from service’ after charges levelled against him stood proved by disciplinary authority in an enquiry held against him after following procedure prescribed under the SSB Rules – Nature of allegations against appellant are grave in nature – As a member of disciplined force, he was expected to follow rules – He was apprehended inside Mahila Barrack by six female constables – When disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to punish him with penalty of ‘removal from service’, which is confirmed by appellate authority, thereafter it was not open for Single Judge to interfere with order of punishment imposed by disciplinary authority – Misconduct committed by delinquent official, being a male Head Constable cannot be equated with misconduct committed by female constable – Misconduct of entering Mahila Barrack of Battalion in midnight is more serious when committed by a male Head Constable – Even otherwise, merely because one of employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by disciplinary authority after due application of mind – There cannot be any negative discrimination – Punishment/penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like position of employee in department, role attributed to him and nature of allegations against him – Disciplinary authority was absolutely justified in imposing punishment/penalty of ‘removal from service’ by modifying earlier punishment of dismissal – Division Bench of High Court is absolutely justified in interfering with judgment and order passed by Single Judge, interfering with order of punishment imposed by disciplinary authority removing appellant from service – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 346/2017, by which Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondents herein – Disciplinary Authority and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order 02.05.2017 passed by Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3576 of 2014, by which Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and interfered with order of punishment of ‘removal from service’ inflicted upon original writ petitioner and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, the original writ petitioner – delinquent has preferred present appeal. Short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, “whether Single Judge was justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the same was disproportionate as female constable against whom also the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the two charges were held to be proved against her, was inflicted with the lesser punishment?”
Findings of Court:
When the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to punish him with the penalty of ‘removal from service’, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, thereafter it was not open for Single Judge to interfere with order of punishment imposed by disciplinary authority.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 346/2017, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondents herein - Disciplinary Authority and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order 02.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3576 of 2014, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and interfered with the order of punishment of ‘removal from service’ inflicted upon the original writ petitioner and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, the original writ petitioner - delinquent has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein was serving as a Head Constable (Ministerial) in the 15th Battalion of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Bongaigaon. He was charged with violation of good order and discipline under Section 43 of the Shashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SSB Act’), for having entered the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion at around 00:15 hours, on the intervening night of 14th - 15th April, 2013. He was charged with indiscipline and misconduct leading to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack. He was apprehended inside the Mahila Barrack by six female constables. The matter was reported to the superiors. He was placed under suspension. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and the Deputy Commandant of the Battalion was ordered to ensure the Record of Evidence (ROE). During the ROE, the statements of prosecution and defence witnesses were recorded. He was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. That the ROE was submitted by the Deputy Adjutant and after due consideration of the same, the Battalion Commandant heard the appellant and under the SSB Rules, the Summary Force Court (SFC) was ordered against the delinquent - Head Constable.
2.1 Before the SFC, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both the charges and accordingly the evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the SFC found the appellant guilty of the charges and initially ordered for his dismissal on 29.04.2013. But, subsequently, the penalty of dismissal was converted to ‘removal from service’ on 21.06.2013 by the Commandant of the Battalion. The departmental appeal filed by the delinquent - Head Constable came to be rejected at first, as time barred on 06.12.2013, but later on, the Appellate Authority upheld the disciplinary action under its order dated 24.01.2014.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellant - delinquent preferred a writ petition before the High Court. Number of submissions were made before the learned Single Judge on the legality and validity of the ROE and the SFC procedures. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that a female constable, Rupasi Barman, who was on sentry duty and who allowed entry of the delinquent during her sentry duty and against whom parallel proceedings were drawn up was also found guilty, she was inflicted the penalty of forfeiture of two years seniority in the rank of constable and also forfeiture of two years’ service for the purpose of promotion only. Therefore, it was submitted that when a much lesser punishment was imposed against a female constable whereas her partner in crime (the appellant herein) was given the punishment of ‘removal from service’, the same can be said to be discriminatory and disproportionate punishment.
2.3 The learned Single Judge specifically observed and held that all due opportunities were afforded to the delinquent and the finding of guilt is found to have been based on cogent material and the evidence of both sides received due consideration and hence under the test of preponderance of probabi
(1) Question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for disciplinary authority and jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution or of Administrative Tribunals ....
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eyes of law.
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
Disciplinary authorities have the exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for proven misconduct, and courts should not interfere unless findings are irrational or arbitrary.
Disciplinary punishment must align with the severity of the misconduct, and excessive penalties can be subject to judicial review and modification.
In disciplinary proceedings, authorities cannot rely on uncharged extraneous facts; even proved single charge of inadvertent suppression requires assessing misconduct gravity and proportionality befo....
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
