MAHESH CHAND Vs. UIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the punishment of dismissal from service on account of overstaying leave is in the facts and circumstances of the case disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner. The legal position regarding scope of interference by a writ court with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee is well settled by a long line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 454, their lordships recognized as correct the proposition that the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon a delinquent employee for misconduct is a matter that lies in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. Even so, the Court held that penalty imposed always be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and any penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the employee would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. That proposition was reiterated in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611. The Court was considering the legality of a punishment order having regard to gravity of the misconduct proved against the employee in that case. Their lordships observed that judicial review generally speaking is directed against the decision making process and that while the choice of the quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court Martial, the sentence must suit the offence and the offender. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The Court recognized the doctrine of proportionality as a part of the concept of judicial review to ensure that even on an aspect which is otherwise within the exclusive province of the Court Martial if the decision of the Court Martial as to sentence is in outrageous defiance of logic, the sentence would not be immune from correction. The following passage is in this regard, apposite :

(2.) The above proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in a number of subsequent decisions handed down by their lordships including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749, where the Court observed :

(3.) Reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 where their lordships declared that while dealing with question of quantum of punishment, the Court would apply the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness. If the punishment is in violation of those principles, it would normally remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been a long delay because of the time taken in completing the disciplinary proceedings or the time taken in the Courts can the Court substitute its own view as to quantum of punishment. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court Union of India v. K.G. Soni (2006) 6 SCC 794 and Regional Manager Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 218, to cite only a few of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court dealing with the subject.