VISHAV BANDHU GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Where paring knife suffices, battle axe is precluded. The issue before us is as to whether sledgehammer has been used by the State in this case to crack a nut. To be tested by us in this case is proportionality or otherwise of the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the petitioner for his acts of misconduct.

(2.) The circumstances relevant for present purposes, as pleaded by the petitioner are as follows.

(3.) During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner took us through above records and contended that punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the charged misconduct of mere unauthorised absence from duty. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that prior to the commencement of period of the alleged unauthorised absence, the petitioner was admittedly on sanctioned medical leave on account of various illnesses, so lenient view ought to be taken. It was argued that even during the period from 9/11/1998 to 19/6/2000, the petitioner remained confined to bed due to ill health, so absence from duty during that period cannot be treated to be wilful. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to the judgment in the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr., (2010) 7 SCR 465 in support of his contention that while imposing punishment, the disciplinary authority ought to have taken into consideration the past service record of the petitioner, which was not done so the dismissal order was not sustainable.