2013 (10) TMI 1347 - SC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary proceedings against the errant employee - The respondent offered his unconditional apology for consumption of alcohol and requested the Disciplinary Authority to take a sympathetic view of the matter and pardon him. - Held that - When the punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, principle of proportionality comes into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with doctrine of Wednesbury Rule of reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charge that it shocks the conscience of the Court and the Court is forced to believe that it is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. The High Court has totally downplayed the seriousness of misconduct. It was a case where the - respondent employee had gone to the place of work in a fully drunken state. Going to the place of work under the influence of alcohol during working hours (it was 11.30 a.m.) would itself be a serious act of misconduct. What compounds the gravity of delinquency is that the place of work is not any commercial establishment but a school i.e. temple of learning. The High Court has glossed over and trivialized the aforesaid aspect by simply stating that the respondent was not a habitual drunkard and it is not the case of the management that he used to come to the school in a drunken state regularly or quite often . Entering the school premises in working hours i.e. 11.30 a.m. in an inebriated condition and thereafter forcibly entering into the Principal s room would constitute a serious misconduct. Penalty of removal for such a misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate. It does not seem to be unreasonable and does not shock the conscience of the Court. Though it does not appear to be excessive either, but even if it were to be so, merely because the Court feels that penalty should have been lighter than the one imposed, by itself is not a ground to interfere with the discretion of the disciplinary authorities. - Decided against the employee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
2. Application of the doctrine of proportionality in judicial review of administrative actions.
3. The role and discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in determining the penalty.
4. The High Court's intervention in modifying the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

The respondent was served with a charge memo under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, for forcibly entering the office of the Principal of Kendriya Vidayala Sangthan, Tura, in a fully drunken state during duty hours on 24.5.2000. The respondent admitted to entering the Principal's office in an inebriated condition but denied it was forcible. He offered an unconditional apology and requested leniency. The Disciplinary Authority, considering the admission, imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The respondent's challenge to these orders was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal but succeeded in the High Court, which found the penalty disproportionate and directed reinstatement with certain conditions.

Issue 2: Application of the doctrine of proportionality in judicial review of administrative actions.

The Supreme Court examined whether the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct. The doctrine of proportionality, which allows judicial review of administrative actions when the penalty is outrageously disproportionate to the misconduct, was discussed. The Court emphasized that the principle is applicable only when the penalty shocks the conscience of the Court and is found to be totally unreasonable and arbitrary.

Issue 3: The role and discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in determining the penalty.

The Court noted that the discretion to decide the penalty lies with the Disciplinary Authority, which must consider various factors such as the nature and gravity of the misconduct, past conduct, duties assigned, and extenuating circumstances. The Appellate Authority can review the reasonableness of the penalty but cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Disciplinary Authority. The Court's role in judicial review is limited to ensuring that the penalty is not irrational or outrageously disproportionate.

Issue 4: The High Court's intervention in modifying the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in applying the principle of proportionality and in downplaying the seriousness of the misconduct. The respondent, an employee of a school, entered the premises in a drunken state during working hours and forcibly entered the Principal's office. The High Court's reasoning that the respondent was not a habitual drunkard and that it was a one-time incident was not sufficient to justify interference with the penalty. The Supreme Court held that the penalty of removal was not disproportionate and did not shock the conscience of the Court. The High Court should not have acted as a disciplinary authority and prescribed a specific penalty.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Tribunal's decision, thereby upholding the respondent's removal from service. The Court reiterated that mitigating circumstances like economic hardship due to removal are to be considered by the departmental authorities and not grounds for judicial interference. The penalty of removal was found to be reasonable given the gravity of the misconduct, and the discretion of the disciplinary authorities was upheld.