2016 (7) TMI 583 - SC - Indian Laws

Punishment of dismissal imposed upon a disciplinary inquiry - the Appellant delivered a judgment on 22 January 1997 convicting the accused, but awarded a sentence of imprisonment less than the minimum prescribed by Section 135 - Proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee - Offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 and the Imports & Exports (Control) Act 1947 - Held that - A disciplinary inquiry, it is well settled, is not governed by the strict rules of evidence which govern a criminal trial. A charge of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The High Court while exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 has to determine as to whether the charge of misconduct stands established with reference to some legally acceptable evidence. The High Court would not interfere unless the findings are found to be perverse. Unless it is a case of no evidence, the High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. If there is some legal evidence to hold that a charge of misconduct is proved, the sufficiency of the evidence would not fall for re-appreciation or re-evaluation before the High Court. Applying these tests, it is not possible to fault the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court on the charge of misconduct. The charge of misconduct was established in disciplinary Inquiry 15 of 2000. The punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct established. Having due regard to the nature of the misconduct which has been found to be established and the totality of circumstances we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal should stand substituted by an order of compulsory retirement. The Appellant has attained the age of superannuation and would be entitled to his retirement benefits on that basis. We accordingly allow the Appeals in part. We confirm the judgment of the High Court in so far as it rejects the challenge by the Appellant to the finding of misconduct. However, for the reasons which we have indicated above we direct that the order of dismissal from service shall stand substituted with an order of compulsory retirement which shall take effect from 14 July 2009, the date on which the final order of penalty was imposed upon the Appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court's decision to revisit the Disciplinary Committee's exoneration of the Appellant.
2. Merits of the charges against the Appellant in Disciplinary Inquiry 15 of 2000.
3. Merits of the charges against the Appellant in Disciplinary Inquiry 6 of 2001.
4. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal imposed on the Appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the High Court's Decision to Revisit the Disciplinary Committee's Exoneration:
The Appellant contended that the Full Court had no jurisdiction to revisit the Disciplinary Committee's decision to exonerate him. The Supreme Court rejected this submission, emphasizing that under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises control over the district judiciary, including disciplinary control. The Full Court is not bound by the Disciplinary Committee's recommendations and is obliged to apply its mind independently to the report submitted by the Committee. The procedural provisions adopted by the High Court of Gujarat, including the distribution of administrative functions to constituent committees, do not efface the jurisdiction of the Full Court.

2. Merits of the Charges in Disciplinary Inquiry 15 of 2000:
The charges against the Appellant in Inquiry 15 of 2000 stemmed from his conduct in two criminal cases involving offenses under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant was alleged to have awarded sentences below the statutory minimum without recording special or adequate reasons, indicating a potential oblique motive. The Disciplinary Committee and the Full Court found that the Appellant, a seasoned judicial officer, should have been aware of the sentencing provisions. The Committee inferred an oblique motive from the Appellant's failure to provide reasons for the lenient sentences and the structuring of sentences to ensure no further imprisonment for the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee were based on evidence and that the Appellant's conduct indicated gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

3. Merits of the Charges in Disciplinary Inquiry 6 of 2001:
In Inquiry 6 of 2001, the Appellant was charged with selectively retaining part-heard cases and imposing negligible fines in cases under the Factories Act, 1948, allegedly indicating corrupt practice. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the Appellant, and the Disciplinary Committee initially agreed. However, upon remand and further consideration, the Committee found the charges proved. The High Court, however, concluded that the Committee's findings were unsustainable, noting the absence of evidence for selective case retention and the Committee's own acknowledgment of insufficient evidence for an oblique motive or corrupt practice. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court's conclusion that the charges in Inquiry 6 of 2001 were not established.

4. Proportionality of the Punishment:
The Appellant argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate given his unblemished service record. The Supreme Court acknowledged that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct established. Considering the nature of the misconduct and the totality of circumstances, the Court substituted the punishment of dismissal with compulsory retirement, effective from the date of the original penalty order. This adjustment allowed the Appellant to receive retirement benefits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's rejection of the Appellant's challenge to the finding of misconduct in Disciplinary Inquiry 15 of 2000 but modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement. The charges in Disciplinary Inquiry 6 of 2001 were found unsustainable. The Appeals were disposed of with no costs.