1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S).3908 OF 2016

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.20042 of 2012)

ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADES & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant was serving as an Additional District and

Sessions Judge in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. He

was charged with misconduct, found guilty and awarded a punishment

of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved,

he preferred a writ petition before the High Court in which he

assailed not only the finding of the guilt but even the punishment

awarded to him. A Division Bench of the High Court, while

upholding the finding of guilt, took the view that instead of

stoppage of two increments, the appellant should have been

Digitally signed by

Mahabir Singh

Date: 2016.04.19

17:33:16 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

punished more severely by directing his removal from service. The

High Court accordingly directed issue of a notice to the appellant

to show cause why he should not be removed from service. It is

that part of the order which has been assailed by the appellant in

the present appeal.

Appearing for the appellant, Mr. D.K. Singh, strenuously

argued that the High Court had misdirected itself in issuing a

notice of enhancement of the punishment awarded to the appellant.

He submitted that by doing so, the High Court had placed the

appellant in a worse-off position, simply because he had

challenged the punishment awarded to him. That was, according to

Mr. Singh, legally impermissible. In support of his submissions,

Mr. Singh placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court in

Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India and Others – (2005) 12 SCC 219 and

Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Another –

(2007) 4 SCC 247.

On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the

question whether the High Court was right in issuing a show cause

notice for enhancement of the punishment awarded to the appellant,

had become academic in view of the fact that the appellant had

since retired from service. It was urged that the question

whether the High Court was justified in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case to direct a show cause notice to the

appellant could, therefore, be left open and the appeal disposed

of, discharging the show cause notice ordered against the

appellant.

The legal position, as to the powers of the High Court to

3

direct enhancement of punishment in a writ petition arising out of

disciplinary action taken against an employee, stands concluded by

the decisions of this Court, referred to above. In Pradeep

Kumar's case (supra), in a somewhat similar circumstances, a

similar question had arisen for consideration before this Court.

In that case too the High Court had found the punishment of

reduction in pay and denial of increments awarded to the appellant

to be inadequate, for the gravity of the misconduct. The High

Court had accordingly remanded the matter back to the disciplinary

authority to award the maximum punishment of dismissal from

service which direction was then assailed before this Court on the

ground that the High Court had no such power to direct enhancement

of punishment either by itself or by remanding the matter to the

disciplinary authority. An employee complaining against the

punishment awarded to him could not, observed this Court, be

placed in a worse-off position for coming to the Court. The

following passages from the judgment is in this regard apposite:

“3.

According to the appellant, similar

punishment was inflicted on the other two

employees. Being aggrieved, all three employees

filed separate writ petitions before the