Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 80436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
K.Kumaravel – Respondent
Writ Petition No.11604 of 2025
For the Petitioners: Mr.C.Samivel
For the Respondent: Mr.Menon
The principle of proportionality in administrative discipline ensures equal treatment, maintaining fairness when imposing penalties for similar misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 and 11(iv) - Misconduct - Employee found with liquor bottle - Charge sheet issued for violation of factory conduct rules - Employee admitted to bringing liquor for ceremonial purposes - CAT found punishment disproportionate - Respondents argued for deterrent measures and discipline - Court agreed with CAT’s reasoning on proportionality and equality before law. (Paras 14 to 18)
(B) Administrative Law - Principle of proportionality in punishment - Equal treatment under law emphasized - Court upheld CAT’s decision to remit the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was sanctioned a penalty for bringing liquor into the factory, which he claimed was for a religious observance. He sought to quash the penalty as disproportionate.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the CAT's view that the explanation for possession of liquor was plausible and the penalty was harsh for a first-time misconduct. The necessity for proportionality in punishment was emphasized, alongside the principle of equality under Article 14.
Issues: The main issues centered around the proportionality of the punishment imposed for the misconduct and equality in disciplinary actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that similar cases should not result in different punishments and that leniency should be considered for first-time offenders. The explanation for the liquor possession was deemed credible and aligned with customary practices.
Result: Writ petition dismissed, with directions for respondents to act in accordance with the CAT's orders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. misconduct involving liquor possession. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of misconduct. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 3. court's agreement with cat on proportionality. (Para 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. emphasis on equality in disciplinary matters. (Para 15 , 17) |
| 5. final dismissal of writ petition. (Para 19) |
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Writ Petition No.11604 of 2025 &
WMP.No.13111 of 2025
1.Union of India, Represented by the Additional Director General, Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Armoured Vehicle Headquarters, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.
2.The Senior General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. ... Petitioners Vs.
K.Kumaravel ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Beach in O.A.No.1131 of 2017 dated 04.11.2024 and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Samivel Respondent : Mr.Menon
ORDER
(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 is 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.1131 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 welder. 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. 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 “Rules, 1965”). The charge sheet was issued on 26.09.2016. The specific misconduct pointed out was of bringing 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 CCS (Conduct) Rules of 1964.
6. On receipt of the charge memo, the applicant accepted the charge that he had brought a liquor bottle into the premises. He stated so by a reply dated 03.10.2016. 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 and 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.1131/2017. 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 bringing a liquor bottle into factory, urged that it was not for the purpose of consumption. He argued that the liquor bottle was purchased by him for the purpose of performance of Pooja to be held on 10.09.2016 in the memory of his junior paternal uncle, who had passed away recently. He pleaded that as his junior paternal uncle did not have any male child to perform the ritual, it fell on the applicant to perform the same.
10. The applicant relied u
