UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. JALALUDEEN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Application was filed by the respondent Jalaludeen Khan under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench at Allahabad (the Tribunal) for setting aside the order dated 4 December 2004 by which he was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence. The orders dated 21 June 2005 and 28 March 2007 by which the Appeal and the Revision filed by the respondent were dismissed, were also assailed in the said Original Application. The said Original Application has been allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated 15 April 2013 and the respondent has been reinstated without any back wages. It is this order that has been assailed in this writ petition. The Tribunal examined whether the punishment of dismissal from service that had been imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him. In this connection the Tribunal, after noticing the defence taken by the respondent, came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate. However, without remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority and without even recording any reason for reducing the punishment, the Tribunal set aside the orders dated 4 December 2004, 21 June 2005 and 28 March 2007 and issued a direction to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent within two months but without any back wages.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the first instance, the punishment that was imposed on the respondent was not disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the respondent and secondly even if it was so, then too it was necessary for the Tribunal to have remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing any lesser punishment but the Tribunal could not itself have reduced the punishment. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, 2006 10 SCC 388 and S.R. Tewari v. Union of India and another, 2013 6 SCC 602.

(3.) Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that the respondent had initially gone on leave authorizedly but he could not join in time since his two sons had fallen down from the roof of the house and that he also became mentally ill about which his wife had informed the Department. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that in fact the petitioners had referred the respondent to the Railway doctor for check up for mental problem and he was given a fitness certificate only on 7 January 2004. It is, therefore, his submission that the Tribunal committed no illegality in recording a finding that the punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It is also his submission that when the punishment is grossly in excess of the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, the Courts can interfere under the limited scope of judicial review. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhari and others, 2009 15 SCC 620.