Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ
Union of India, Represented by the Additional Director General, Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Armoured Vehicle Headquarters, Avadi, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
P.Neelakandan – Respondent
Writ Petition No.11548 of 2025
For the Petitioners: Mr.C.Samivel
For the Respondent: Mr.Menon
Punishment must be proportional to misconduct; unequal penalties violate equality before law under Article 14.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 and Rule 11(iv) - Violation of conduct rules by bringing liquor into factory - Charge accepted by applicant; penalty imposed was withholding increment - CAT found penalty disproportionate and remitted for fresh consideration on proportionality, challenging that order in writ petition. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 13, 19)
(B) Proportionality of Penalty - The court ruled that if two different punishments are imposed for similar misconduct, it violates equality before law and Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
Applicant attempted to bring a liquor bottle into factory premises; he argued it was an innocent mistake. The CAT found the punishment imposed was too harsh considering it was the first misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The court agrees with the CAT’s view that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the penalty imposed was proportionate to the misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle established is that punishment must be proportionate to the act, aligning with the principle of equality before the law.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. attempt to bring liquor into factory premises. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 2. arguments regarding the penalty for misconduct. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on punishment disproportionality. (Para 13 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. final decision on the writ petition. (Para 19) |
(Order of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
We heard Mr.C.Samivel for the petitioner and Mr.Menon for the respondents.
2. The petitioners were the respondents and the respondent was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”).
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
4. This writ petition seeks for the following relief:
“To call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Beach in O.A.No.1132 of 2017 dated 04.11.2024 and quash the same.”
5. The admitted facts are the applicant joined the services of the respondent as a mechanist. He was given night duty on 09.09.2016. At the time of mustering in of the applicant, at about 19.30 hours, the security staff of the respondents found that the applicant was carrying a liquor bottle in his bag. Taking serious view of this misconduct, the applicant was issued a charge sheet invoking Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “ CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965”). The charge sheet was issued on 26.09.2016. The specific misconduct pointed out was of trying to bring a liquor bottle containing alcohol inside the factory for consumption during working hours. This, according to the respondents, was in violation of Security Standing Orders and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1964.
6. On receipt of the charge memo, the applicant accepted the charge that he had brought a liquor bottle in his bag into the premises. He stated so by a reply dated 04.10.2016. The second respondent, after analysis of the case, imposed penalty of "withholding of increment for a period of one year, which is otherwise due subsequent to the issue of the order, with cumulative effect". This order was passed invoking Rule 11(iv) of CCS (CC & A) Rules of 1965. The order was passed on 24.10.2016.
7. Aggrieved by this Order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 25.11.2016. The first respondent rejected the appeal on 23.03.2017. Challenging the same, the applicant approached the CAT.
8. The CAT took the application on file in O.A.NO.1132/2017. It called upon the respondents to submit a reply and the respondents duly submitted the same.
9. The applicant, before the CAT, though had accepted the act of trying to bring a liquor bottle into the factory, urged that the bag containing the liquor bottle belonged to his friend. His friend had placed the bottle in his bag. He argued that the bags were interchanged and the liqour bottle, that has been carried by his friend in his bag, was identified as if it was in the applicant's bag. Apart from that, he pointed out that he is a sportsman in HVF Football team and had secured 17 meritorious medals for the respondent's institution. In addition, the applicant had been appreciated for his excellent performance in sports by way of cash awards for the years
2009, 2012 and 2015.
10. The applicant pleaded that it was an innocent mistake and therefore, it may be condoned. In addition, he relied upon an order passed by the CAT in O.A.No.585 of 2012 etc., batch in support of his case.
11. Per contra, the respondents urged that the applicant had accepted the misconduct of trying to bring a liquor bottle into the factory premises. They urged that the applicant was aware of the instructions and actions, that had been initiated by the second respondent, on other employees towards charges with similar offences (i.e.) for bringing liquor into the factory. It was pleaded
