Judicial review of disciplinary decisions is limited; courts cannot reconsider the nature of punishment unless found shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the importance of discipline in sensitive roles.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Introductory:-

1. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition in W.P.No.28673 of 2013 under orders dated 19.09.2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the writ petitioner filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondents as and how they are referred in the writ petition.

3. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the relief of any writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, against the proceedings of Respondent No.4 in imposing compulsory retirement on the petitioner as a measure of punishment, which was confirmed in appeal proceedings by Respondent No.3 and also the proceedings of Respondent No.2, declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, disproportionate and violative of principles of natural justice under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Case of the Writ Petitioner:

4........

[i] The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the respondent force on 15.07.1986. A charge sheet was issued against him dated 26.09.2011 with the allegations that he was found sleeping while on duty at23:59 hours on 02.09.2011.

[ii] Further, he was charged that earlier there was thirteen punishments and two severe warnings against him. He was found sleeping while on duty on six occasions. The explanation of the petitioner that he was sick and had submitted medical certificates in that regard but the same was not considered. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report dated 08.02.2013, seeking his explanation and he submitted his explanation on 27.02.2013. Whereas, the orders are passed on the same day imposing compulsory retirement. When the appeal was pending, proceedings dated 09.04.2013, directing petitioner to vacate the quarters etc. were issued.

[iii] The appeal before the appellant authority and the review before the revisional authority were in vain.

[iv] The punishment of compulsory retirement is a major punishment and the same is disproportionate for the charge of sleeping.

Hence the same deserves to be set aside.

Case of the respondents:

5. The petitioner was discharging his duties as a sentry in a very hyper-sensitive unit like SDSC SHAR. The establishment is having national importance under the continuous radar of the armed forces and the Ministry of Space Centre. The dereliction of duties by a sentry in such a sensitive posting is not a routine matter. The misconduct is grave. Hence, appropriate orders are passed. Ample opportunity was given to the petitioner, principles of natural justice were followed and a detailed enquiry was conducted. His previous misconduct was also considered as the same is permissible in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Bishamber Das Dogra , (2009) 13 SCC 102 .

6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions of both sides and also the previous misconduct of the writ petitioner / appellant, sensitive nature of the duties in which the appellant is placed and after satisfied with the fairness in the procedure adopted in the enquiry, dismissed the Writ Petition observing that there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority / respondents.

7. The present appeal is filed questioning the orders of the learned Single Judge.

8. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the material available on record.

Arguments in the appeal:

8. (A) For the appellant/wr