Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Shree Chandrashekhar, Kuldeep Mathur, JJ.
Union Of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and ors. - Appellants
Versus
L/NK Prithvi Singh Bishnoi S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Bishnoi - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 972/2011, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 318/2011
Decided On : 25-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi for Mr. B.L. Bishnoi
For the Respondent: Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore, Ms. Saumya Choudhary
IMPORTANT POINT
Punishments in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the misconduct; excessive penalties can be remanded for reconsideration.
Headnote:
Disciplinary - Dismissal - Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 20, 48 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding disciplinary actions and penalties, emphasizing that punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct, leading to the conclusion that dismissal was excessive.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves intra-Court appeals against a Single Judge's order that remanded a disciplinary dismissal for reconsideration, asserting the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of using abusive language by a long-serving employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal was excessive given the employee's long service and the nature of the misconduct, agreeing with the Single Judge's assessment that the punishment should be reconsidered.
Issues: Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct and whether the Single Judge erred in remanding the matter for reconsideration of the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disciplinary authorities must impose penalties that are proportionate to the misconduct, and excessive penalties can be challenged if they shock the conscience of the court.
Result: The intra-Court appeals were dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's order.
ORDER :
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
These intra-Court appeals are directed against the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner- L/NK Prithvi Singh Bishnoi assailing the correctness of the order dated 03.10.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service has been partly allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant 23 Battalion, Border Security Force to reconsider the question regarding imposition of the penalty as per section 48 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act of 1968’ hereinafter). Learned Single Judge further directed that the Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to impose any penalty upon the writ petitioner- L/NK Prithvi Singh Bishnoi except the punishments prescribed under section 48(1)(a),(b),(c) & (d) of the Act of 1968.
2. In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.972/2011, the employer (Union of India) has prayed that the order under appeal dated 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside as the order of punishment dated 03.10.2001 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the writ petitioner- L/NK Prithvi Singh Bishnoi. The writ petitioner- L/NK Prithvi Singh Bishnoi has also assailed the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge on reaching to a definite conclusion that the punishment imposed upon writ petitioner is shockingly unjust and arbitrary should not have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing punishment and, instead, a minor punishment as mentioned under section 48 of the Act of 1968 could have been imposed upon him by the learned Single Judge.
3. Before proceeding further it would be pertinent to note here that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.11.2024 while disposing of the stay application preferred by the employer- Union of India with SAW No.972/2011 pleased to pass following order:-
“Heard on the question of grant of stay.
By impugned order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the respondent's writ petition and in consequence thereof has set aside the termination order of the respondent and in so doing, learned Single Judge has remanded the case to the appointing authority for deciding the issue with regard to imposition of fresh punishment on the respondent other than the punishment of dismissal/termination as prescribed under the Rules. In other words, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the punishment originally inflicted upon the respondent (delinquent employee) appeared to be harsh and excessive being not commensurate with the gravity of charge levelled against him, and therefore, the extreme punishment of dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appointing authority to impose any other punishment other than dismissal/termination in its discretion as prescribed under the Rules.
It is against this order, the employer (Union of India) has come up in appeal and has sought stay of these directions pending appeal.
In our view, let the appointing authority take a decision in the matter as directed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order in its discretion as per the rules. However such decision shall not be given effect to nor it will in any way take away the right of the appellant to prosecute this appeal on merits only because impugned direction was not stayed. Let the decision be placed before this Court after it is taken for our perusal. It be done within three months.
We, however, make it clear that implementation of the impugned order would not in any way be construed as disposal of this appeal on merits and appeal will be heard independent to that of decision on merits.”
4. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that during pendency of the present writ petitions, the Disciplinary Authority of the res
