The doctrine of proportionality is a part of the concept of judicial review and ensures that even on an aspect which is otherwise within the exclusive province of the disciplinary authority, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction.

Nishita Mhatre, J.:

1. The short question involved in the present petition is with respect to the powers of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal of judicial review.

2. The brief facts involved in the present case are as follows:

The respondent, a Police Constable with the Kolkata Police, was suspended on 13th December, 1999 for certain acts of misconduct. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 5th June, 2000 incorporating three charges against him, namely, (i) that while on guard duty in a bank, he had unauthorisedly been absent from 8th December, 1999 to 14th December, 1999; (ii) that he was absent from the company barracks during the aforesaid period; (iii) that during the aforesaid period of absence he visited the Jalpaiguri Police Line with an ulterior motive and tried to influence prospective candidates for recruitment to the rank of Constable in Kolkata Police. The respondent submitted his reply to the aforesaid allegations. As it was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was instituted against him. Four witnesses were examined during the enquiry by the petitioners. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13th September, 2000 in which he held that all the three charges were proved against the respondent. A second show cause notice was issued to the respondent. He submitted his reply which again did not find favour with the authorities. An order was issued by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent from service with effect from 20th August, 2001. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority on 25th July, 2003.

3. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. 602 of 2003. Affidavits were exchanged and the matter was heard by the Tribunal. By an order dated 13th May, 2010 the Tribunal allowed the application, partly. The Tribunal was of the view that the unauthorised absence mentioned in the charges (i) and (ii) had been proved. However, with respect to charge (iii), the Tribunal was of the opinion that it was a vague charge and that the Enquiry Officer had reached the conclusion that the charge had been proved without there being any evidence on record. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that a perverse conclusion was drawn by the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal therefore ordered the petitioners to reinstate the respondent within 8 weeks from the order if the respondent had not retired from service during the pendency of the application before it. The Tribunal further directed that the respondent was entitled to continuity in service. However, as a measure of punishment for his unauthorised absence, the Tribunal denied the respondent his back wages.

4. Mr. Joytosh Majumder, the learned Counsel appearing for the State, criticised the judgment of the Tribunal on three grounds, namely, (a) that the Tribunal had overreached the boundaries prescribed by the Supreme Court while exercising the power of judicial review; (b) the Tribunal had erred in concluding that the third charge with respect to the respondent trying to influence the recruitment process had not been proved; (c) that the Tribunal could not substitute its own decision with respect to the punishment to be imposed on a delinquent employee.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, urged that there is no need for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of the Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the Tribunal by a well-reasoned order has found that charge (iii) had not been proved and had therefore modified the punishment imposed. He further submitted that while exercising the power of judicial review the Tribunal is empowered to reduce the punishment if it is shockingly disproportionate. According to the learned Counsel it is not necessary for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposing another punishment as that wou