S S RAJASEKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the 1st respondent-Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, dated 24.06.1999, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

(3.) AS said earlier, in view of the limited relief sought for in the writ petition, we cannot go into the merits and demerits of the order passed by the original authority, imposing a punishment, namely, dismissal from service. Accordingly, we are concerned about the order dated 24.06.1999 passed by the 1st respondent. It is not in dispute that the second charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved. The first charge relates to overstayal for a period of 46 days without leave or prior permission from his superior authority. Though this time, i.e., after remand, the 1st respondent has passed a speaking order adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal, admittedly, there is no reference to the quantum of punishment. Though in para 6(iv) of the impugned order, the 1st respondent has stated that the petitioner was awarded six punishments in the past during his service of about seven years for his various acts of misconduct and indiscipline, admittedly, no details about the same have been furnished. It is not clear whether those punishments are minor or mere warning or Censure, etc. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the 1st respondent is not justified in placing reliance on six punishments said to have been suffered by the petitioner. Apart from this, as pointed out earlier, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he overstayed for a period of 46 days without prior leave or permission. Whether, for such act, dismissal from service is warranted or not, has not at all been considered by the 1st respondent though referred to the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer and the conclusion of the disciplinary authority. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner was in more disciplined Force. At the same time, in view of the statutory Rules, various types of punishments depending on the gravity of the proved charges, we are of the view that it is but proper on the part of the 1st respondent to go into the aspect, namely, whether the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to proved charges. Though the learned counsel submitted that considering the longstanding litigation, even this court can interfere and modify appropriate punishment, we are of the view that it is appropriate for the 1st respondent to reconsider their decision with regard to quantum of punishment. We make it clear that the punishment of dismissal is not warranted taking note of the proved charge and all other materials placed before us.