Back
2001 Supreme(All) 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Markenday Katju and Omkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Appellant
Versus
BISHWAMBHAR NATH MISRA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 6926 Of 2001
Decided On : 02/26/2001
A.K.DAVE, A.K.Gaur
Tribunals can substitute the punishment awarded by the authority to a lesser punishment in appropriate cases to shorten litigation and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons.
Headnote:
Punishment - Railway Service - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to substitute the punishment of removal from service with compulsory retirement, considering the respondent's retirement and enabling him to receive pensionary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Railway employee, was removed from service after being chargesheeted for absence without leave. The Tribunal substituted the punishment of removal with compulsory retirement, allowing the respondent to receive pensionary benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, citing the humanitarian approach taken due to the respondent's retirement.
Issues: Challenge to the Tribunal's decision to substitute the punishment awarded by the concerned authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., where it was held that the High Court or Tribunal can substitute the punishment awarded by the authority to a lesser punishment in appropriate cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to substitute the punishment with compulsory retirement.
( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged the impugned order, dated November 9, 2000, Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It appears that respondent No. 1 was in Railway service and was chargesheeted for his absence without leave for certain periods. After enquiry he was removed from service. The Tribunal substituted the punishment of removal from service by punishment of compulsory retirement. Evidently the Tribunal took this humanitarian approach because the respondent No. 1 has retired from service and by substituting the punishment of removal from service by the punishment of compulsory retirement it enabled him to get pensionary benefits in his old age. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with this humanitarian approach of the Tribunal.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal cannot substitute the quantum of punishment awarded by the concerned authority. However the Honble Supreme court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 484: 1995 (6) SCC 749: 1996-I-LLJ-1231 has held that the High Court or Tribunal can itself substitute the punishment awarded by the authority to some lesser punishment in appropriate cases to shorten the litigation and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. Hence, as mentioned above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
( 4 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
.
