Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 107 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh

2004-01-21

ANIL DEV SINGH, K.S.RATHORE

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.1.1999 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4143/1997. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows :The respondent was serving as Constable with the police department. He absented himself from duty on 9.9.1989 without any application for grant of leave. It was only after more than one year i.e. on 13.12.1990 that he appeared in the office of the appellants The disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings u/R. of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 against the respondent as he remained absent from duty for more than one year. On completion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority on the basis of the material on record came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent Constable was proved. As a consequence thereof the disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing the respondent from service.Aggrieved by the action of the appellant the respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4143/1997. The learned Single Judge while agreeing with the disciplinary authority that the respondent had remained absent without leave and the charge was proved against him, the learned single Judge was of the view that the punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The learned single Judge. therefore, modified the punishment and imposed upon the respondent the penalty of withholding of four increments. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 3. It needs to be pointed out, even at the cost of repetition, that in so far as the question of enquiry. which was held against the respondent is concerned, the learned single Judge did not find any fault with it and declined to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority to the extent that the charge against the respondent had been proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Having held that, the learned single Judge altered the punishment, which was imposed on the respondent. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent belongs to a disciplined force. He absented himself without permission for a period of more than one year. The charge against the respondent was a grave one. The disciplinary authority in view of the gravity of the charge imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent. 5. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent belongs to a disciplined force. He absented himself without permission for a period of more than one year. The charge against the respondent was a grave one. The disciplinary authority in view of the gravity of the charge imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent. 5. It is well settled that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Court or Tribunal no interference is warranted. This was not a matter where the punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. It is imperative for the members of the force to maintain discipline. A person, who is undisciplined that he would leave his duty and absent himself for a period of one year cannot claim that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. In such a case compassion or mercy has no place. If lenient view is taken in case of this kind, it would breed indiscipline in the force. 6. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 484 the Supreme Court on review of several earlier decisions held as follows "A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with Review to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." 7. In the aforesaid case the employee had put in 30 years of service. He had brilliant academic record. He was successful in the competitive examination. Keeping in view these facts the High Court substituted the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him by the disciplinary authority to one of compulsory retirement. In the aforesaid case the employee had put in 30 years of service. He had brilliant academic record. He was successful in the competitive examination. Keeping in view these facts the High Court substituted the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him by the disciplinary authority to one of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court did not approve the view of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the facts, which weighed with the High Court for reducing the punishment imposed on the employee were not relevant. In view of the gravity of the misconduct, namely he having been found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of his income, the Supreme court did not approve the interference by the High Court with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the employee. 8. In State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr. (1996) 1 SCC 302 the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of a constable whose services were terminated on account of his having absented from service held as follows : "We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge". Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere, with the punishment holding that "the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge "specially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out." 9. It needs to be noted that the Supreme Court emphasised that the respondent therein was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined forte demanding strict adherence to the rules. No case for interference with the punishment is made out." 9. It needs to be noted that the Supreme Court emphasised that the respondent therein was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined forte demanding strict adherence to the rules. The Supreme Court treated the charge Of absence from duty as a grave one and did not find any justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment. The facts of the instant case are somewhat identical to the facts of aforesaid case. 10. Again in Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar, JT 2003(2) SC 78 the Supreme Court held as : In the case at hand the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. Even there is no discussion on this aspect. The only discernible reason was the punishment awarded in M.L. Keshwani's case. As was observed by this Court in Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. , even a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment it cannot be a ground for interference. Even such a plea was not available to be given credence as the allegations were contextually different." 11. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court to that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is not to be lightly interfered with by the High Court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 484 and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 . 13. We find that these cases turned on their own facts. The delinquent employees in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. , and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (supra) did not belong to the police force. 14. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.Appeal Allowed. *******