2020 Supreme(SC) 538

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Pravin Kumar – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Union of India and Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6270 of 2012
Decided On : 10-092020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of manner in which decision is made.
(2) Disciplinary authority is sole Judge of facts.
(3) Charges such as corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline ought to be dealt with strictly.
(4) Judicial review is an evaluation of decision-making process and not merits of decision itself.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 32/226 – Scope of Judicial Review in Service Matters – Power of judicial review discharged by Constitutional Courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is distinct from appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority – Judicial review is an evaluation of decision-making process and not merits of decision itself – Judicial Review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion – It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome – Constitutional Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume role of an appellate authority – Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice – Judicial review is not analogous to venturing into merits of a case like an appellate authority. (Paras 25 and 28)

(B) Service Law – Dismissal – Charges of corruption and extra-constitutional conduct – No material contradictions could be pointed out in the witnesses’ testimonies, and no compelling alternate evidence had been produced – Testimonies of different officials revealed appellant’s modus operandi of collecting illegal monies through a network of subordinate officers; and more crucially, his attempts at suppressing witnesses and fabricating evidence when caught – Enquiry officer had followed prescribed procedure and no challenge had been made earlier to his impartiality and no request to change enquiry officer was ever made – No malice or bias could even be suggested at this stage of disciplinary proceedings – Appellate authority had carefully dealt with each plea raised by appellant in his appeal and had given detailed responses to all contentions to satisfy appellant’s mind – Disciplinary authority too was impeccable and no infirmity can be found in report of enquiry officer either – Even in general parlance, where an appellate or reviewing Court/authority comes to a different conclusion, ordinarily decision under appeal ought not to be disturbed in so far as it remains plausible or is not found ailing with perversity – Punishment of dismissal from service is far from disproportionate to charges of corruption, fabrication and intimidation which have unanimously been proven against appellant – Taking any other view would be an anathema to service jurisprudence – Appellant’s actions would most probably have caused huge consequential losses to BPCL and lowered reputation of CISF amongst members of public – Given paramilitary nature of appellant’s force, a sense of integrity, commitment, discipline, and camaraderie is paramount – Appeal dismissed. [Rule 29(a) read with Rule 31(a) Schedule II of CISF Rules, 1969; Article 311 of Constitution] (Paras 13, 14, 29, 30, 37, 38 and 39)

(C) Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Criminal proceedings are distinct from civil proceedings – It is both possible and common in disciplinary matters to establish charges against a delinquent official by preponderance of probabilities and consequently terminate his services – But same set of evidence may not be sufficient to take away his liberty under our criminal law jurisprudence – Such distinction between standards of proof amongst civil and criminal litigation is deliberate, given differences in stakes, power imbalance between parties and social costs of an erroneous decision – In a disciplinary enquiry, strict rules of evidence and procedure of a criminal trial are inapplicable. (Para 34)

(D) Service Law – Punishment – Rule of Proportionality – Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency, subject to principles of proportionality and fair play – Such requirements emanate from Article 14 itself which prohibits State authorities from treating varying degrees of misdeeds with same broad stroke – Determination of such proportionality is a function of not only action or intention of delinquent, but must also factor financial effect and societal implication of such misconduct – But unlike in criminal cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings Courts only interfere on grounds of proportionality when they find that punishment awarded is inordinate to a high degree, or if conscience of Court itself is shocked – Whereas imposition of major penalty (like dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory and impermissible for trivial misdeeds but for grave offences there is need to send a clear message of deterrence to society – Charges such as corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline are prime examples of latter category and ought to be dealt with strictly. (Para 36)

Facts of the case:

Present civil appeal, which has been heard over videoconferencing, is directed against the order dated 05.05.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in WP No. 1001/2001, whereby appellant’s plea for quashing disciplinary proceedings and setting aside dismissal order on charges of corruption and extra-constitutional conduct while employed as a paramilitary officer, was rejected.

Findings of the Court:

Appellant’s contention that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the allegation of corruption, is without merit. It is a settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency, subject of course to principles of proportionality and fair play. Such requirements emanate from Article 14 itself, which prohibits State authorities from treating varying degrees of misdeeds with the same broad stroke.

Result : Appeal dismissed.