DISTRICT JUDGE BAHRAICH Vs. MUNIJAR PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent had been appointed as a driver purely on ad hoc basis by the district Judge, Bahraich vide order dated 22/06/1996. On certain charges of misconduct being framed against him he was placed under suspension on 9/06/1998. The order of suspension was followed by departmental proceedings. There was a preliminary enquiry conducted by the VII addl. civil Judge (Jr. Division) , Bahraich and on submission of the report of the preliminary enquiry, which had found the respondent prima facie guilty, a full fledged enquiry was held. After serving the respondent with a charge-sheet and taking into consideration his reply, show cause notice was issued to the respondent by the district judge along with a copy of the enquiry officer's report calling upon the respondent to show cause why he be not punished by an order of dismissal. The order of dismissal was passed on 23/11/1998. The respondent did not file any departmental appeal as provided. under section 7 of the U. P. Subordinate Court Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976. Instead of filing an appeal before the competent authority, the respondent filed a writ petition. The learned single judge, vide order dated 17/11/2000 set aside the order of punishment of dismissal and remanded the matter to the district judge for taking a fresh decision on the punishment to be imposed in the light of the observations made by the learned single judge. The learned single judge further directed that the respondent shall be deemed to have been reinstated till an order is passed by the district judge, as directed by the learned single judge. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the learned single judge, which came to be dismissed on 2/01/2001. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) We have serious doubts of the manner in which the learned single judge has dealt with the writ petition. The applicability of doctrine of proportionality as demonstrated in Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham [jt 1997 (7) SC 572] appears to have been completely lost sight of by him. As held in Om Kumar v. Union of India [jt 2000 (Suppl. 3) SC 92], in exercise of judicial review jurisdiction, High Court cannot interfere with quantum of punishment, in the field of administrative law unless it is satisfied that Wednesbury Principles are violated, in which case the High Court shall ordinarily remit the matter to authority competent to order punishment. In UPSRTC v. Subhash Chandra Sharma [ (2000) 3 SCC 324] punishment of removal awarded after proof of charges was held not liable to be interfered with unless it was "shockingly disproportionate". No such finding was arrived at either by learned single judge or by division bench.