RANJIT HARIJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that a disciplinary proceedings was drawn against the writ petitioner. He was issued a show cause notice. He replied to it. Enquiry Authority discharged him from the charge of theft. However, the disciplinary authority differed. There was no reason for such difference. The writ petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court. This Court directed the authority to issue fresh second show-cause notice. Accordingly, fresh show-cause notice was issued. The disciplinary authority was given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order of removal/dismissal was passed. The order of removal/dismissal is set out hereunder.

(2.) Mr. Chakraborty submits that the first charge of theft was not proved before the Enquiry Officer. The second charge of manipulation was proved. He submitted that the order of removal was passed. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is dis-proportionate to the penalty imposed. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that this is also contrary to the rules. He also submitted that there are judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was held that in case of disproportionate punishment, the Hon'ble Court should interfere and take appropriate decision.

(3.) Mr. Chakraborty cited one decision JAI BHAGWAN v. COMMR OF POLICE & ORS, 2013 AIR(SC) 2908 and the other one SENGARA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1984 AIR(SC) 1499 Citing the decisions Mr. Chakraborty submitted that it is now well settled that the Courts would interfere only when punishment is outrageously disproportionate to gravity of misconduct.