2006 (2) TMI 594 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a persons should be removed from service for an act of misconduct? Held that - Appeal dismissed. It is not in dispute that the Lok Ayukta was the disciplinary authority. The power to impose punishment on the Appellant vested only in him. The office of a Lok Ayukta is of great importance. People approach Lok Ayukta with various grievances. They require urgent enquiry. It is not difficult to presume that only because such complaints were received, a practice developed that no almirah should kept under lock and key. The Appellant must be presumed to have knowledge thereabout. Despite the same he had put his almirah under lock and key. He refused to hand over the key when called upon to do so. He did not cross-examine the only witness who was available. He also did not examine himself. He did not examine any defence witness. He did not show any remorse and in that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the order of punishment passed by the Lok Ayukta suffered from any infirmity.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Lok Ayukta.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Appropriateness of the punishment imposed on the Appellant.
4. High Court's interference with the quantum of punishment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Lok Ayukta:
The Appellant argued that the Lok Ayukta, being a witness to the incident, should not have conducted the disciplinary proceedings himself. The Lok Ayukta had appointed an external officer, Shri S.K. Arora, to conduct the inquiry, but the Appellant objected to the appointment of any outsider. Consequently, the Lok Ayukta had no option but to proceed with the inquiry himself. The Supreme Court noted that the Lok Ayukta, being the disciplinary authority, had the power to impose punishment and that the Appellant's objection to an outsider conducting the inquiry amounted to a waiver of his right to an impartial inquiry.

2. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The Appellant contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as the Lok Ayukta acted as both judge and witness. The Supreme Court acknowledged that natural justice is based on two pillars: nobody shall be condemned without hearing, and nobody shall be a judge in his own cause. However, it also noted that these principles could be waived or excluded by statute, particularly under the doctrine of necessity. Since the Appellant himself objected to an external inquiry officer, the Lok Ayukta had no choice but to conduct the proceedings. The Court cited precedent indicating that in such cases, the principles of natural justice give way to necessity.

3. Appropriateness of the punishment imposed on the Appellant:
The Appellant was found guilty of misconduct for not handing over the keys to his almirah and using indecent language. The Lok Ayukta imposed the punishment of removal from service but awarded the Appellant the maximum compassionate allowance. The High Court modified this punishment to compulsory retirement, reasoning that the punishment of removal did not commensurate with the gravity of the charges. The Supreme Court, however, held that the punishment imposed by the Lok Ayukta was justified given the Appellant's refusal to cooperate, his use of indecent language, and his failure to deny the recovery of documents from his almirah.

4. High Court's interference with the quantum of punishment:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for interfering with the quantum of punishment. It emphasized that judicial review should not normally interfere with the administrator's decision unless it is illogical, procedurally improper, or shocking to the conscience of the Court. The Court cited precedents to assert that the scope of judicial review is limited to the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in modifying the punishment, as the Lok Ayukta's decision did not suffer from any infirmity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal and allowed the State's appeal, upholding the Lok Ayukta's decision to remove the Appellant from service. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding the violation of natural justice or the appropriateness of the punishment. It reaffirmed the principle that judicial review should be limited to the decision-making process and not extend to the merits of the decision.