9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the dismissal order. 2. Procedural fairness in the disciplinary process. 3. Proportionality of the punishment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Dismissal Order: The appellant, an Assistant Wireless Operator, was dismissed from service following an incident on the night of 28/29th July 2001, where he was found in plain clothes and allegedly used inappropriate language towards a superior officer. The disciplinary authority found him guilty of misconduct, leading to his dismissal. The appellant's subsequent appeals to the appellate authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal were unsuccessful, prompting him to approach the High Court of Delhi, which also dismissed his writ petition and review petition. 2. Procedural Fairness in the Disciplinary Process: The appellant raised five grounds before the High Court challenging the dismissal: - Non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report. - Alleged inconsistency in Inspector Harjeet Singh's reports. - Potential bias due to DCP Communication acting as the Disciplinary Authority. - Medical advice against wearing the police uniform due to skin allergy. - Lack of evidence supporting the allegation of sleeping during duty and the harshness of the punishment. The High Court examined these contentions and found no merit in them, concluding that the disciplinary process was fair and the findings of guilt were not perverse. 3. Proportionality of the Punishment: The appellant's counsel argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct, which involved rude language and not wearing a uniform. The Supreme Court acknowledged the doctrine of proportionality, which allows judicial review of the punishment's reasonableness. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that punishment should not be so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. The Supreme Court found the punishment of dismissal to be grossly disproportionate, considering the appellant's ten years of service and the nature of the misconduct. However, the Court noted the appellant's false accusation against the Inspector, which complicated the issue. Balancing these factors, the Court decided to reduce the punishment to demotion to the rank of constable, without arrears of pay for the period between dismissal and reinstatement. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, modifying the punishment from dismissal to reduction in rank, with continuity of service but without financial benefits for the interim period. The Court directed the respondents to implement the order within three months. No costs were awarded.
|
