IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
SANJIB BANERJEE, W. DIENGDOH, JJ.
A. Murali Krishna - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & ors - Respondents
WA No.16 of 2019
Decided on : 29-11-2021
Service Law - BSF Act, 1968 - u/s 40 and 26 -Punishment of Dismissal of Service - Charges proved - Departmental appeal - Act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force and intoxication - Scope of Judicial Review – Limited.
Finding of the Court:
Writ petitioner also admitted his guilt in respect of the two charges in the second charge-sheet which were far more serious upon the writ petitioner having disobeyed a command to meet the Company Commander and the writ petitioner using abusive and intemperate language in connection therewith - limited scope of judicial review exercised in respect of matters of the present kind, the court cannot supplant its discretion in place of that which has been exercised by the disciplinary authority unless the exercise of the discretion is found to be perverse. Indeed, the court, in such a scenario, looks into the decision-making process rather that the decision itself. Of course, if the punishment appears to be grossly disproportionate to the acts complained of or if it shocks the conscience of the court, the court may interfere with the punishment awarded - a member of a disciplined force was found be intoxicated and such member was also found on another occasion to have directly refused to obey a command by his Company Commander and used abusive language in course of such refusal. If the superiors within the disciplined force found that it was imperative that such indiscipline be dealt with in the harshest manner, it does not shock the conscience of the court for the court to step in and interfere with the punishment.
Result: Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is utterly baseless and a complete waste of time by a recalcitrant erstwhile Border Security Force (BSF) employee. What is worse is the attempt on the appellant?s part to mislead the court.
2. The appellant has been dismissed from service after being found guilty on all four charges levelled against him. The writ petition was made out in such a manner that the papers pertaining to the first set of charges were appended to the writ petition, but the other papers were not. The impression that was sought to be given in the writ petition was that the writ petitioner admitted his guilt in respect of the two minor charges but there may not have been adjudication on the two major charges.
3. However, what is undeniable is that upon the writ petitioner being found guilty on admission on all four charges and being dismissed from service, he preferred a departmental appeal which was dealt with by an order dated May 11, 2017. A copy of the order is appended to the writ petition. Paragraph 2 of the appellate order, in so far as it summarizes the facts, is set out:
Point of Law - Dismissal of service - Charges proved - Limited scope under judicial review
Scope of judicial review exercised in respect of matters of present kind, court cannot supplant its discretion in place of that which has been exercised by disciplinary authority unless exercise of d....
The court's decision emphasized that unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference, and that the Tribunal/Court ca....
The court upheld the dismissal of a disciplined force member for serious misconduct, affirming that the punishment was proportionate to the charges and consistent with judicial standards for discipli....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedural requirements for recording the 'plea of guilty' and the need for fair trial guaranteed under the Border Secu....
The involvement of a prosecution witness as the "friend of the accused" in a disciplinary proceeding violates the principles of natural justice and renders the proceedings invalid.
The court held that the difference in punishment was not discriminatory as the SSFC had taken into account the previous convictions of the petitioner, while the co-accused had no previous convictions....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.