2021 (8) TMI 1393 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of petition submitted by the writ petitioner seeking to modify the punishment of removal from service imposed on him into one of compulsory retirement was set aside and certain directions were issued - HELD THAT - The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority, but, an exception is carved out therein to the effect that if the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges, then the Court is at liberty to interfere with the punishment. In such case, instead of remitting the matter back, the Court can substitute a suitable punishment. The writ petitioner is entitled for the similar treatment, that has been extended to N.Subramanian and after passage of time, remitting the matter again to the authorities would not serve any purpose. Thus, directing the authorities to modify the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner to the one that has been imposed on N.Subramanian would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the Government Order refusing to extent such benefit to him. The Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of petition for modifying punishment from removal to retirement.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order rejecting the writ petitioner's plea to change the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, previously an Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, was involved in misappropriation of funds leading to criminal conviction and removal from service. The co-accused N.Subramanian, dismissed and later granted compulsory retirement, was cited as a precedent for similar treatment sought by the petitioner.

The appellants argued that different authorities handled the disciplinary proceedings due to the petitioner's post-change, justifying the varied outcomes. They contended that the criminal revision court only modified the sentence, not the punishment, hence no basis for altering the removal order. The respondent's counsel emphasized the similar punishment imposed on all accused, questioning the disparate appellate decisions. The Single Judge's order favoring the writ petitioner was supported, urging the appeal's dismissal.

Upon review, the Court noted the identical charges and punishment for all accused, yet the petitioner faced distinct treatment in the appeal process. Citing the doctrine of equality, the Court referenced relevant Supreme Court judgments to support parity in disciplinary actions against co-delinquents. The Court highlighted the limited scope for judicial interference in disciplinary matters, except for cases of shocking disproportionality or unequal treatment among similarly placed individuals.

Applying the legal principles, the Court found merit in granting the petitioner the same benefit as N.Subramanian, without further delay. Upholding the Single Judge's decision, the Court dismissed the appeal, directing compliance with the order within a specified timeframe. No costs were awarded, and the case was concluded.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the appeal challenging the rejection of the petitioner's request to alter the removal punishment to compulsory retirement. The Court emphasized equality in disciplinary actions, citing relevant legal precedents to support its decision in favor of granting similar treatment to the petitioner as to his co-accused. The directive for compliance with the Single Judge's order within a stipulated period concluded the case, with no costs imposed.