9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for checking the cabin used by the Appellant he found the same locked from inside. The Inspector knocked at the door but got no response from within the cabin. He then knocked the door harder whereupon, the Appellant shouted at him from inside saying, KYA DARWAJE KO TOREGA BE (Are you determined to break the door). When the door was eventually opened by the Appellant, the Inspector found him wearing plain civilian clothes. He asked the Appellant the reason for not being in proper uniform to which the Appellant replied that he liked to dress like that only. The Appellant also refused to give the log book to the Inspector when asked and snatched the same from him when the Inspector picked it up from the table. The Appellant was, in the above circumstances, charged with misconduct. The charge read as under: I, Inspr. Anil Dureja, DE Cell. Delhi charge you HC Jai Bhagwan, No. 1212/Commn. That while discharging operator Duty at Radio a Radio Station P.S. Patel Nagar on the intervening night 28/297.2001 from 2000 hrs. To 0800 hrs. Inspr. Harjeet Singh who was night checking officer, approached for checking at the door of wireless cabin at 0035 hrs, The cabin was found locked from insi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unreasonable and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, to be countenanced by the Court. 5. The High Court examined each of these contentions and rejected the same by an order that is impugned in the present appeals. The High Court took pains to look into the evidence on record to find out whether there was any perversity in the view taken by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, or the Tribunal and found none. Even on the question of quantum of punishment, the High Court held that the Petitioner had no case inasmuch as the incident in question was one of gross indiscipline and the penalty of dismissal from service was justified. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the orders under challenge. The charges framed against the Appellant have been held proved by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and even by the Tribunal concurrently. The High Court reviewed those findings and found nothing perverse about the same. There is in that view no room for our interference on that account. In fairness to learned Counsel for the Appellant we must mention that even he did not make any serious attempt to assail the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and with which this Court ought not to interfere. 9. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily rest in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order of punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it is entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent Authority in determining and awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that the Court considers it be arbitrary in that it is wholly unreasonable. The superior Courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. A punishment that is so excessive or disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even when Courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the kind of misconduct proved against the Appellant appears to us to be grossly disproportionate. There is no allegation that the Appellant had manhandled the police Inspector who had gone to check the cabin. Delay of 10 minutes in opening the cabin door, which according to the Appellant was open but had got stuck because of humidity leading to expansion of the wooden frame, was not a matter that ought to have led to the Appellant's dismissal after he had served the police force for over 10 years. Even assuming that the version given by the Appellant was not acceptable the same did not constitute a misconduct of a kind that would justify the Appellant's dismissal from service leading to forfeiture of his past service. That the Appellant was not in uniform may also be breach of discipline calling for administrative action against him but not so severe as to throw him out of the police force. The analogy drawn by the Appellant in this case and that of Ram Kishan's case (supra) is not, therefore, wholly misplaced. The delinquent in that case too was charged with misbehaviour with his superior leading to his dismissal from service which was found by this Court to be dispro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
