9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... working hours (it was 11.30 a.m.) would itself be a serious act of misconduct. What compounds the gravity of delinquency is that the place of work is not any commercial establishment but a school i.e. temple of learning. The High Court has glossed over and trivialized the aforesaid aspect by simply stating that the respondent was not a “habitual drunkard” and it is not the case of the management that he used to come to the school in a drunken state “regularly or quite often”. Entering the school premises in working hours i.e. 11.30 a.m. in an inebriated condition and thereafter forcibly entering into the Principal’s room would constitute a serious misconduct. Penalty of removal for such a misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate. It does not seem to be unreasonable and does not shock the conscience of the Court. Though it does not appear to be excessive either, but even if it were to be so, merely because the Court feels that penalty should have been lighter than the one imposed, by itself is not a ground to interfere with the discretion of the disciplinary authorities. - Decided against the employee. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8948/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2013 - Sudhansu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice. It is in these circumstances, the appellant-school has approached this Court questioning the reasoning and rationale of the direction given by the High Court. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, the only question to be examined in these proceedings is as to whether the penalty of removal from service inflicted upon the respondent herein by the appellantschool offends the principle of proportionality i.e. whether the penalty is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct to the extent that it shocks the conscience of the Court and is to be treated so arbitrary so as to term it as violative of Artice 14 of the Constitution? 4. The parties are not at cudgels in so far as facts are concerned and in such a scenario we have to examine the nature of misconduct imputed to the respondent in the charge memorandum and then apply the principle of proportionality thereto. The sole article of charge was that the respondent, on 24th May 2000 in duty hours, entered forcibly in the Principal s office in duty hours at 11.30 a.m. in fully drunken alcohol state. The statement of imputation of the said misconduct/misbehavior annexed with the charge sheet as Annexure II reads as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reduce the penalty so imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Such a power which vests with the Appellate Authority departmentally is ordinarily not available to the Court or a Tribunal. The Court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts.(See: Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia M.Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775) In exercise of power of judicial review, however, the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely - because in the opinion of the Court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities. 7. When the punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, principle of proportionality comes into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with doctrine of Wednes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of this principle on the facts of this case where the High Court has committed an error while holding that the punishment was shocking and arbitrary. Moreover, while interfering therewith, the High Court has itself prescribed the punishment which, according to it, would meet the ends of justice , little realizing that the Court cannot act a disciplinary authority and impose a particular penalty. Even in those cases where it is found that the punishment is disproportionate to the nature of charge, the Court can only refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate view by imposing lesser punishment, rather than directing itself the exact nature of penalty in a given case. 10. Here in the given case, we find that the High Court has totally downplayed the seriousness of misconduct. It was a case where the - respondent employee had gone to the place of work in a fully drunken state. Going to the place of work under the influence of alcohol during working hours (it was 11.30 a.m.) would itself be a serious act of misconduct. What compounds the gravity of delinquency is that the place of work is not any commercial establishment but a school i.e. temple of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. It is stated at the cost of the repetition that discretion lies with the disciplinary/appellate authority to impose a particular penalty keeping in view the nature and gravity of charge. Once, it is found that the penalty is not shockingly disproportionate, merely because in the opinion of the Court lesser punishment could have been more justified, cannot be a reason to interfere with the said penalty. The High Court has also mentioned in the impugned order that the respondent is a married man with family consisting of number of dependents and is suffering hardship because of the said economic capital punishment . However, such mitigating circumstances are to be looked into by the departmental authorities. It was not even pleaded before them and is an after effect of the penalty. In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot a ground for the Court to interdict with the penalty. - This is specifically held by this Court in H.G.E.Trust Anr. vs. State of Karnataka Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 430 in the following w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
