2008 (5) TMI 601 - SC - Indian Laws

Removal of respondent from service commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct Whether the competent authority was justified in removing the respondent from service? Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for passing appropriate order of punishment short of removal? Held that - Appeal allowed. The High Court in this case, has not only interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in a routine manner but overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the Appellate Authority to impose any other punishment short of removal. By fettering the discretion of the Appellate Authority to impose appropriate punishment for serious misconducts committed by the respondent, the High Court totally misdirected itself while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. The order passed by the competent authority removing the respondent from service is restored.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against High Court's judgment setting aside removal from service and remanding for reconsideration of punishment.

Analysis:
The respondent, a police officer, was removed from service for serious misconduct involving loss of cash and service revolver. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the removal, citing a mitigating circumstance of the respondent losing consciousness after accepting sweets from a co-passenger. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference lacked sufficient reasons and overstepped its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should be respected unless shocking to the conscience of the court. The respondent's breach of instructions, causing loss to the exchequer and risking misuse of the service revolver, warranted strict action due to his position of trust in a disciplined force. The Court reinstated the removal from service, highlighting the need for proportionate punishment in cases of serious misconduct by public servants. The judgment serves as a reminder of the limited scope for judicial review in disciplinary matters, especially when the punishment aligns with the gravity of proven charges.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment and restoring the removal from service imposed by the competent authority. The direction to reconsider the punishment was set aside, reaffirming the importance of upholding disciplinary actions in cases of serious misconduct by public officials. The Court emphasized the need for proportionate punishment in such cases, considering the nature of duties, integrity requirements, and potential societal impact. The judgment reiterates the principle of respecting disciplinary decisions unless they shock the conscience of the court, highlighting the limited role of judicial interference in such matters.