The court found the punishment imposed on the petitioner to be shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the necessity for procedural fairness and continuity of service after wrongful termination.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Tax), holding charge of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Tax, NOIDA dated 19.07.2012 to the extent it punishes the petitioner after disciplinary proceedings.

2. The facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are necessary to recount, notwithstanding the fact that the issue involved here is limited. The petitioner is a Sewak (Class-IV employee) in the service of the Trade Tax Department and posted in the NOIDA Region, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In the night intervening 06/07.07.1995, the petitioner was posted at the Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad Check-post along with two other Sewak, Ram Swarup and Kushalpal. The allegation against the petitioner was that along with the two other Sewak, he permitted a vehicle, bearing Registration No. DL-G/9490, to pass through the Check-post without checking its papers. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending inquiry along with Ram Swarup, one of the two other Sewak, vide order dated 27.12.1995. He was served with a charge-sheet on 25.10.1999. The petitioner filed his reply on 01.02.2000, denying the charges. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry, returning a finding of guilt against the petitioner on both charges. The petitioner says that the Inquiry Officer had remarked that the petitioner and the other two Sewak, Ram Swarup and Kushalpal, were equally guilty. About Kushalpal, it is said that though equally answerable, he was not suspended or charge-sheeted.

3. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 09.03.2000, to which he submitted a reply dated 13.03.2000. The Assistant Commissioner (Administration), Trade Tax, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 14.03.2000 proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Office Trade Tax), NOIDA vide order dated 09.11.2001. The petitioner challenged these orders before this Court by means of Writ-A No.20574 of 2008. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court in part, setting aside the order of dismissal, on the ground that it was disproportionate punishment, with a remit of the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass orders afresh “awarding some lesser punishment”. The writ petition, that was indeed partly allowed, was expressed to have been disposed of by the learned Judge deciding it, who vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2012 remarked:

“The charges have been made out against the petitioner of allowing one truck to pass on that date without having a valid gate pass.

The petitioner's services have been brought to an end for one single incident.

It has been stated by the petitioner in para 25 of the writ petition that two other class IV employees were also present along with the petitioner but they have not been faced with any kind of punishment. This factum is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State.

In the counter affidavit filed by the State other than this incident, no other reference has been made out to the past or previous conduct of the petitioner which was against the interest of the department.

It is also not denied by the State that there were two other persons posted along with the petitioner on the same night and they have not been given any punishment.

For a single act of carelessness and negligence, it is only the petitioner who has been given the extreme punishment of termination from service.

The appellate authority while imposing punishment has not made any discussion as to why this extreme punishment alone would be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In my opinion, the punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner of termination is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges which have been found against him. Therefore I set aside the order of termination. The matter is remitted to the punishing authority for awarding some lesser