RAJENDRA KUMAR ARYA Vs. CHAIRMAN NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 5-7-1993 (Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition). Since there is no factual controversy it is not necessary to call for a counter-affidavit.

(2.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri R. K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Petitioner was a Clerk in Nagar Palika, Kosi Kalan, district Mathura. He was appointed in 1971 and has been working continuously since then. By the impugned order dated 5-7-1993 he has been dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the allegation against the Petitioner was that he had taken a sum of Rs. 30 as illegal gratification for renewal of ration cards, but he had subsequently accepted his mistake and prayed forgiveness, and stated that he will never commit the mistake again. However, Respondents chose to dismiss him. Aggrieved, he filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) I am of the opinion that in this case the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the offence. As held by the Supreme. Court in Sardar Singh v. Union of India, 1992 AIR(SC) 417, the punishment should be proportionate to the offence. The Petitioner has accepted his mistake and has sought forgiveness and in these circumstances I am of the opinion that though the Petitioner certainly deserves punishment yet the punishment should not be of dismissal. After all, the Petitioner had only taken a paltry sum of Rs. 30 and he has prayed for forgiveness,. I do not mean to suggest that taking paltry sums illegally should be condoned, but the magnitude of the sum involved is a factor which should be taken into consideration when deciding the. quantum of punishment. In these days when moral standards have deteriorated everywhere one cannot expect the same high standards of ethics from petty officials as could be expected earlier. Moreover, when the Petitioner had begged for forgiveness, this factor, coupled with the fact that the sum involved was paltry, is a mitigating circumstance. One is reminded of the famous speech of Portia in Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" where she pleaded that justice should be tempered with mercy. Hence I set aside the impugned order dated 5-7-1993 and I direct that the Petitioner shall be reinstated within a month of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the Respondent No. 1, but he will be deprived of two annual increments and he is given a stern warning not to commit this kind of misconduct in future. He will also be deprived of back wages from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement, but he will get his suspension allowance for the period he was under suspension.