SATENDER PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Constable in CISF. Vide order dated 11.09.2002 passed by the Senior Commandant, CISF 2nd Res. Bn, Saket, New Delhi the petitioner was removed from service for his unauthorized absence for 17 days from 05.02.2002 to 21.02.2002. This order of removal from service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers vested in it under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 32 of CISF Rules, 2001. In appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority modified the punishment from 'removal from service' to 'compulsory retirement' vide impugned order dated 12/13.01.2003 passed by the DIG, N.Z. Aggrieved from the said order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari against the respondents setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and also of the Disciplinary Authority referred above. He has prayed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The short question that calls for determination in the present writ petition is whether the punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service' on account of alleged absence of the petitioner for 17 days is, is in the facts and circumstances of the case, disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. 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. The question relating to interference with the quantum of punishment was recently considered by us in detail in our recent judgment in Mahesh Chand Vs. UOI and Ors. (WP(C) No. 734/2006) decided on 31.05.2007. In the said case, relying on various judgments of the Supreme Court, this Court held that 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.

(3.) It was held by the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 454 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. It was further held in the said case that penalty imposed should always be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved against the employee and any penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct 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, wherein it was held as under:-