JETHABHAI J. KHRISTI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, KHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .....After considering all the aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has held that punishment of dismissal which has been imposed on the petitioner is not disproportionate to the misconduct to which he was subjected to the inquiry. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore & Anr. reported in JT 1994 (1) SC 217 observed that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is one of judicial review. It has further been observed that in the matter of imposition of punishment or penalty which can be lawfully imposed on proved misconduct, of the employee, the High Court has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the disciplinary authority. It has further been held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case that the High Court has no jurisdiction to impose any punishment to meet the ends of justice. In the case of State Bank of India (supra), the employees was given the punishment of removal from the service and the matter has been considered with reference to the argument as to whether the punishment of removal of service is harsh. Considering this aspect, the Supreme Court held that proper punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary. The Apex Court has observed that the appellate authority may interfere with the same, but this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is disproportionate or some lesser punishment has to be given to meet the . ends of justice.

(2.) xxx xxx xxx