MOHAN LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING put in service for twenty-four years, the appellant was removed from the service vide order dated 28. 10. 1994 on the charge of wilful absence from service for a period of two months. Although the appellant had filed a departmental appeal against the said order, his appeal was dismissed vide order dated 7. 4. 1995. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28. 10. 1994 and 7. 4. 1995 before this Court. However, vide judgment dated 5. 8. 1996, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed as a constable in the Railway Protection Force, in the year 1968. From 1968 to till 1992, neither any charge-sheet was served upon him, nor there was any complaint about his conduct. But, on 12. 9. 1992, a charge-sheet was served upon him, wherein two charges were levelled against the appellant: firstly, he was wilfully absent from duty from 9. 10. 1991 to 25. 11. 1991 without any sanctioned leave. Secondly, the appellant was caught gambling in the railway quarter and was granted bail on 19. 11. 1991. However, he had concealed this fact from the respondent-authorities. THErefore, a disciplinary inquiry was contemplated against him. Immediately; the petitioner filed a reply against the said charges and pleaded that according to the charge-sheet itself, the respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner has sent a medical certificate with regard to his illness and his inability to join the service, although the medical certificate was issued by a private practitioner. Considering the existence of the medical certificate, it cannot be said that he had absented from his duties willfully. With regard to the second charge, the petitioner had pleaded that he was falsely implicated by the police as would be obvious from the Roznamcha dated 30. 11. 1991. However, notwithstanding his reply, an inquiry officer was appointed vide letter dated 18. 2. 1992. Instead of giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority i. e. , Divisional Security Commissioner. Vide order dated 30. 9. 1992, the Divisional Security Commissioner, imposed a penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, set aside the punishment order and directed a de novo disciplinary proceedings, as the departmental inquiry had been held ex-parte. THErefore, the appellant was reinstated in service. But, later on he was placed under suspension vide order dated 11. 11. 1993.

(3.) IN the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Anr. vs. Munna Lal Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84) while dealing with the scope of judicial review of punishment awarded in a departmental inquiry, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: The Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or is shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards. Unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. When a court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. IN the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.