Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 669 (CAL)

Union of India v. Arunachalam

2018-09-10

I.P.MUKERJI, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25th June, 2018. The issue of misconduct against the respondent, Shri Arunachalam, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was that the applicant was in possession of six 750 ml bottles of IMFL which is more than the permissible limit. In other words, two bottles more than the permissible limit. 2. It appears from the FIR lodged against the applicant that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority, by an order dated 4th February, 2016, imposed a penalty of dismissal with immediate effect on the respondent by the Andaman Police. 3. It may relevant to mention that a criminal trial was also conducted against the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mayabunder and on 6th December, 2016, the respondent was acquitted from the charges. 4. In the impugned order, the learned tribunal was of the view that even if the misconduct is admitted, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was "shockingly disproportionate" to the alleged misconduct as the respondent had already served 32 years in the department before his dismissal and that the family members of the respondent would be deprived of the pensionary benefits which the respondent was entitled to by reason of his service with the Andaman and Nicobar Police Department. 5. The other point which is required to be mentioned and which also appears from the order impugned is that other police constables, who have been named in the impugned order, involved in cases of similar misconduct were awarded much lesser penalty such as withholding of future increments of one year etc. The punishments meted out to such police constables have been stated in the impugned order and all involve penalties which are far less severe and none of them has been removed from service. 6. Paragraph 8 of the impugned order is required to be set out since it indicates the reasons given by the learned Tribunal for its decision. "8. The legal question that arises for consideration is whether the punishment of removal from services passed in the instant case is proportionate to the gravity or passed arbitrarily and on parity, when the applicant has already served in the department for 22 years. "8. The legal question that arises for consideration is whether the punishment of removal from services passed in the instant case is proportionate to the gravity or passed arbitrarily and on parity, when the applicant has already served in the department for 22 years. We do not go to the degree of misconduct but find that the punishment of removal becomes shockingly disproportionate as by this order, the applicant losses all his service benefits rendered to the Department for the last 22 years." 7. It is also significant that the tribunal allowed the disciplinary authority to pass any sentence on the applicant except the order of removal and in keeping that the punishment awarded to other similarly situated employees/police constables for committing similar offences in the past. 8. Mr. Mandal, learned senior advocate appearing for the administration very seriously opposes this application. He says that a police is a disciplinary force and that not even a slight indiscipline should be tolerated. 9. We have considered the submissions of counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the respondent (applicant before the tribunal). We feel that the reasons given by the tribunal are in order since the punishment imposed on the respondent for carrying two extra bottles of IMFL is wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. There is no evidence on record to show that the respondent was found consuming the liquor, which he was carrying or was found in any other act, which would deserve an order of dismissal from service after having served the police department for the last 32 years as on the date of the impugned order. Since the disciplinary authority has been permitted to impose any punishment which it would deem fit in the circumstances, but keeping in view the punishment/penalty imposed on the other police constables for the same offence in the past, we do not intend to interfere with the order impugned. We are also of the view that depriving a man of his livelihood must involve a crime or misdemeanor of a very serious nature, which has not been shown in the present case. 10. The respondent (applicant in the tribunal) will be reinstated in service and be allowed to perform his duties, as he was doing before 20th March, 2015. 11. With these observations, WPCT No. 201 of 2018 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.