Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 569 (KAR)

D. Dhanalakshmi v. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

2008-10-01

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, P.D.DINAKARAN

body2008
JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, CJ. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.2007 in writ petition No. 10402/ 2005. 1. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner was an employee of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, who had been proceeded in a domestic enquiry, which resulted in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority on the charges of issuance of incorrect and false birth certificates by the appellant/petitioner while functioning as Sub-Registrar at the Office of the Registration of Births and Deaths, which finding has been confirmed by the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority reduced the punishment to one of reduction of emoluments of the appellant/petitioner to the minimum in the pay-scale in the cadre in which she was working, against which a writ petition was filed. The learned Single by the order impugned herein dismissed the writ petition, Hence the appeal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides. 4. The learned Single Judge has observed in the course of the order that the quantum of punishment is always within the domain of the employer and once charges are found proved the Courts should refrain from interfering in the matter of punishment. It is only in rare cases where the punishment imposed is totalIy disproportionate to the misconduct, the Court could exercise jurisdiction to interfere with such orders. 5. When the material on record clearly discloses that the misconduct alleged against the appellant/petitioner has been established both before the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the only question that arises for our consideration is whether the punishment imposed by the authorities is grossly improportionate to call for our interference. 6.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority has been reduced on appeal by the appellate authority to one of reduction in pay-scale to the lowest level in the cadre in which the appellant/petitioner was working. The misconduct proved against the appellant is that of issuing false caste certificates. The said misconduct without doubt is of a very serious nature as it would have far-reaching consequences, in that, the certificates so obtained could be used to procure benefits meant for a specific community of the society. The misconduct proved against the appellant is that of issuing false caste certificates. The said misconduct without doubt is of a very serious nature as it would have far-reaching consequences, in that, the certificates so obtained could be used to procure benefits meant for a specific community of the society. Thus the gravity of charges proved against the appellant/petitioner is such that it cannot be said that the punishment as now imposed by the appellate authority is either excessive or disproportionate to the charges proved against the appellant/ petitioner. That being the case, the challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.2007 upholding the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority cannot be sustained. 6.2. This view of ours is also fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Narain Singh reported in (2002) 5 SCC 11 , wherein it is held as hereunder: "Once the Court came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and were of a serious nature, it was not the function of the Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The Division Bench was wrong in holding that factors viz. (a) the person is coming from which place (b) his family background, and (c) his service record etc. were to be kept in mind. The Division Bench was also wrong in holding that if a poor person pleads guilty to the misconduct, then extreme penalty of dismissal is uncalled for. A Court must not lightly interfere with sentences passed after a properly conducted enquiry where the guilt is proved. Reduction of sentence, particularly in military, paramilitary or police services can have a demoralizing effect and would be a retrograde step so far as discipline of these services is concerned. In the present case the charges were of a serious nature and the penalty was commensurate with the charges. Further the Division Bench has itself noted that this was the third time the respondent was punished. It is not for the Court to interfere on misplaced grounds of sympathy and/or mercy." 7. Hence, we do find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.2007. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.