Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 892 (PAT)

Deo Narayan Singh v. Union Of India

2007-05-05

J.N.BHATT, S.K.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the challenge is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated, 17.1.2007, in C.W.J.C. No. 11308 of 2005, whereby/the writ petition challenging the departmental punishment of reducing pay of the appellant-original writ petitioner at the minimum stage for three years and suspension of any increment for three years on the ground of misconduct found by the Domestic Tribunal, came to be dismissed. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that against the order of punishment the appellant had filed an appeal before the departmental channel and it was, also, dismissed affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Same was the fate on being questioned on the revision. Thus, there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Domestic Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no any such misconduct in the facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, the original writ petitioner ought to have been exonerated from the charges. 4. The second submission is in relation to the quantum of the punishment. 5. Insofar as the first submission is concerned, let it be mentioned that the alleged misconduct is on the part of the protector of law who allegedly had perpetrated the law. For that, it was alleged that the original writ petitioner who was a constable was in a drunken state and had gone to the house of a lady constable and had got the door opened and had forced her to serve him food which was not accepted by the lady constable. On the contrary, the lady constable requested the delinquent appellant to go away from her house. On this misconduct the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment which was challenged before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Upon consideration of over all spectrum of fact and profile of material on record, as well as, the finding of facts concurrently recorded by the three authorities of the departmental channel with regard to the misconduct on the part of the appellant, it cannot be said that there is no misconduct against the appellant. Therefore, the first submission must fail. 7. So far the second submission with regard to the quantum of punishment of the petitioner is concerned, the doctrine of proportionality will come in the picture. Therefore, the first submission must fail. 7. So far the second submission with regard to the quantum of punishment of the petitioner is concerned, the doctrine of proportionality will come in the picture. Ordinarily, it is within the domain of Domestic Tribunal to consider the facts and circumstances of the extent of delinquency committed by the delinquent for the purpose of imposing punishment. However, by host of the case laws it has been evolved that if the extent of punishment is disproportionate to the delinquency committed then the Court can appropriately remould and re-set such an order or can send the matter for fresh consideration on quantum of punishment. The doctrine of proportionality of punishment will not get attracted to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the misconduct is committed by the police constable whp became perpetrator of law, who is otherwise considered to be a protector of law and that too in such a way and in such a fashion. The imposition of punishment reducing pay of minimum stage of three years without any increment awarded to him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the delinquency established against the original writ petitioner. Therefore, the second submission, also, must fail. 8. In the result, this appeal shall stand dismissed.