Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf, JJ.
Sunny Chaurasia v. Union of India
Miscellaneous Petition No. 794 of 2025 (J); Decided on 17.2.2025*
Samveg Tripathi for petitioner; Sandeep Kumar Shukla for respondents.
Disciplinary authorities have discretion in penalties, and different outcomes for similar misconduct do not equate to discrimination if circumstances differ.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act - Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters - The court examined the legality and propriety of disciplinary penalties imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the charges of leaving duty without intimation, leading to a penalty of pay reduction. (Paras 1, 9-11)
(B) Equal Treatment in Disciplinary Actions - The court affirmed that differences in penalties for similar misconduct do not necessarily imply discrimination if the circumstances of each case vary significantly. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was penalized for leaving duty without notifying supervisors, citing a family emergency. Previous disciplinary actions against other employees for similar misconduct were presented to argue for a lesser penalty. (Paras 4-6)
Findings of Court:
The penalty was deemed appropriate as the disciplinary authority had discretion, and the petitioner’s admission of guilt weighed significantly against him. The court held that the tribunal's decision was justified and not subject to interference. (Paras 9-11)
Issues: The primary issues included the appropriateness of the penalty in the context of alleged discrimination and whether proper procedures were followed in imposing the punishment. (Paras 7, 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The decision reinforced that the court's review is limited to procedural fairness and not the substantive outcomes of disciplinary decisions when administrators exercise discretion within reasonable bounds. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary actions and appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding disproportionality of punishment (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial review of disciplinary decisions (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. application of prior judgments to current case (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final dismissal of petition (Para 14) |
ORDER
Per: Justice Vinay Saraf
1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question of legality, validity and propriety of order dated 3.10.2018 passed by Senior General Manager, Ordinance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur, whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by Additional DGOF and Member, Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 6.12.2024 passed in O.A. No.227/2020 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Bench at Jabalpur affirming the orders passed by disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.
3. Heard Shri Samveg Tripathi, Advocate for petitioner on the question of admission.
4. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was discharging the duties in the Ordinance Factory, Khamaria as Highly Skilled Grade-II and on 8.11.2018 he handed over his punching card to Kishore Kumar and left the factory without intimating to the superior officers and Kishore Kumar was caught at the time of punching his card. Upon the said allegation, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and in reply, the petitioner had admitted his guilt however, submitted explanation that his mother was suffering from cancer and he received an information that she has fell sick all of sudden therefore, he left the factory to take his mother to the hospital and handed over his punching card to Kishore Kumar.
5. As the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation supplied by the petitioner passed the order on 3.10.2018, whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed from the date of order. Order of disciplinary authority was assailed by the petitioner before the Appelate Authority who rejected the appeal by order dated 25.11.2019 and, therefore, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.227 of 2020 before CAT, Jabalpur, which was also dismissed by order dated 6.12.2024.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the penalty which was imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate as for the misconduct of similar nature, another employee Shri Lal Bahadur Rai was imposed the punishment of censure only, whereas the petitioner was awarded greater penalty, which amounts to hostile discrimination. He further submits that in the original application filed before CAT, Jabalpur, the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in the matter of TELCO Ltd. v. Jitendra PD Singh reported in (2001) 10 SCC 530 and Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73, whereby the Supreme Court has held that in the matter of almost identical charges of misconduct with the same incident, it would be denial of justice, if the different punishment is awarded to different employees. He further submits that these judgments were not considered by CAT, Jabalpur and, therefore, the order passed by Tribunal is erroneous, illegal, unjust and liable to be set aside.
7. Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India on advance copy supported the order passed by Tribunal and submits that no case of discrimination is made out. He further submits that the petitioner had already accepted the guilt and the punishment which was awarded to the petitioner is insufficient and the disciplinary authority had taken very lenient view in the case of petitioner. He prays for dismissal of petition.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels
