2003 JTR(SC) 109
2003 4 AIC 591 ; 2003 AIR(SC) 1437 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 775 ; 2003 2 AWC 986 ; 2003 3 BLJR 1653 ; 2003 96 FLR 1004 ; 2003 2 JCR(SC) 3 ; 2003 1 JT 557 ; 2003 LIC 752 ; 2003 1 LLN 809 ; 2003 1 Scale 545 ; 2003 4 SCC 331 ; 2003 SCC(L&S) 464 ; 2003 1 SCR 729 ; 2003 1 SCT 820 ; 2003 2 SLJ 43 ; 2003 2 SLR 385 ; 2003 1 UPLBEC 765 ; 2003 1 UPLBEC 810 ; 2003 4 Supreme 313
2003(4) Supreme 313
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From A.P. High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Director General R.P.F. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Ch. Sai Babu -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4622/2000
Decided on 29-1-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mukul Rohatgi, Addl. Solicitor General, S. Wasim A. Quadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R.S. Hegde, Allam Nagabhushanam, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Normally, in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate, High Courts and Tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment.
Act Referred :RAILWAYS PROTECTION FORCE RULES : R.153
(A) The impugned order of removal from service of the respondent was challenged before the High Court under the provisions of Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which govern the disciplinary proceedings and penalties for misconduct by members of the Railway Protection Force. The statutory framework contemplates that a disciplinary authority, after an enquiry, may frame charges, find facts, and impose penalties including removal from service, subject to review by a High Court where the severity or propriety of the punishment may be examined in writ or revision petitions. The present appeal underscores the application of these provisions where an earlier penalty of stoppage of increments for three years had been imposed, and the same conduct was subsequently held to warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal, invoking the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction under the Rules.
(B) Key legal principles include that the High Courts power to modify an order of removal on the ground of disproportionate punishment is not automatic but is to be exercised only in appropriate cases where the court is satisfied that the punishment is shockingly or grossly disproportionate after examining all relevant factors, such as the nature of the charges, past conduct, prior penalties, the sensitivity of duties, and the need for discipline. The court must record clear reasons for modifying the disciplinary order, and mere belief that a punishment is extreme is insufficient to interfere. Further, where disciplinary proceedings are pending for a long duration, the court may remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment rather than itself substitute its view.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a member of the Railway Protection Force, was charged under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules with misconduct amounting to dereliction of duty. After an enquiry, all charges were held proved, and the disciplinary authority ordered his removal from service. The appellant challenged the removal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court, where the Single Judge modified the penalty to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages except subsistence allowance, observing that the respondent was a habitual offender but the charges were not so serious as to warrant removal.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court, setting aside the appeal, endorsed the Single Judges order without independently examining the facts and the proportionality of the punishment. The court noted that the Single Judge did not provide reasons for modifying the penalty, nor did the Division Bench examine the matter in perspective or record reasons as to how the punishment was shockingly or grossly disproportionate. It was held that in cases where punishment of removal is imposed, interference by the High Court is justified only where the court is convinced after considering all relevant factors that the penalty is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, and such reasons must be recorded.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in modifying the punishment of removal to stoppage of increments without recording adequate reasons? Whether the Division Bench could endorse the Single Judges order without examining the merits of proportionality and relevant factors? Whether the writ petition could be remitted to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the punishment of removal could not be modified merely on the ground that it appeared extreme without a detailed finding of facts and reasons as to disproportionate nature, especially where the charges were repetitive though not of the most serious nature and prior punishment had already been imposed. The absence of reasoned findings by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench on proportionality warranted setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the Division Bench to reconsider solely the quantum of punishment in light of all relevant factors and the nature of the respondents service under the Railway Protection Force Rules.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court to reconsider the quantum of punishment, with a direction to dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously.
(A) The impugned order of removal from service of the respondent was challenged before the High Court under the provisions of Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which govern the disciplinary proceedings and penalties for misconduct by members of the Railway Protection Force. The statutory framework contemplates that a disciplinary authority, after an enquiry, may frame charges, find facts, and impose penalties including removal from service, subject to review by a High Court where the severity or propriety of the punishment may be examined in writ or revision petitions. The present appeal underscores the application of these provisions where an earlier penalty of stoppage of increments for three years had been imposed, and the same conduct was subsequently held to warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal, invoking the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction under the Rules.
(B) Key legal principles include that the High Courts power to modify an order of removal on the ground of disproportionate punishment is not automatic but is to be exercised only in appropriate cases where the court is satisfied that the punishment is shockingly or grossly disproportionate after examining all relevant factors, such as the nature of the charges, past conduct, prior penalties, the sensitivity of duties, and the need for discipline. The court must record clear reasons for modifying the disciplinary order, and mere belief that a punishment is extreme is insufficient to interfere. Further, where disciplinary proceedings are pending for a long duration, the court may remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment rather than itself substitute its view.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a member of the Railway Protection Force, was charged under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules with misconduct amounting to dereliction of duty. After an enquiry, all charges were held proved, and the disciplinary authority ordered his removal from service. The appellant challenged the removal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court, where the Single Judge modified the penalty to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages except subsistence allowance, observing that the respondent was a habitual offender but the charges were not so serious as to warrant removal.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court, setting aside the appeal, endorsed the Single Judges order without independently examining the facts and the proportionality of the punishment. The court noted that the Single Judge did not provide reasons for modifying the penalty, nor did the Division Bench examine the matter in perspective or record reasons as to how the punishment was shockingly or grossly disproportionate. It was held that in cases where punishment of removal is imposed, interference by the High Court is justified only where the court is convinced after considering all relevant factors that the penalty is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, and such reasons must be recorded.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in modifying the punishment of removal to stoppage of increments without recording adequate reasons? Whether the Division Bench could endorse the Single Judges order without examining the merits of proportionality and relevant factors? Whether the writ petition could be remitted to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the punishment of removal could not be modified merely on the ground that it appeared extreme without a detailed finding of facts and reasons as to disproportionate nature, especially where the charges were repetitive though not of the most serious nature and prior punishment had already been imposed. The absence of reasoned findings by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench on proportionality warranted setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the Division Bench to reconsider solely the quantum of punishment in light of all relevant factors and the nature of the respondents service under the Railway Protection Force Rules.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court to reconsider the quantum of punishment, with a direction to dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 15th June, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent was given charge sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 framing five charges relating to misconduct on his part. After enquiry report was submitted holding that all the charges levelled against him were proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings as recorded by the enquiry officer passed an order of removal of the respondent from service. He unsuccessfully challenged the said order of his removal from service before the appellant and revisional authority. Thereafter he filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of removal from service on various grounds. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties did not find any good ground to disturb the finding of fact as to the charges which stood proved against the respondent. However, in relation to the quantum of Punishment, the learned Single Judge held thus:
"It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, and due to dereliction of duties, punishment of stoppage of increment for three years was already ordered in the year 1984. But there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. However, the present charges, though repetitive are not so serious in nature as to warrant extreme punishment of removal from service. I want to give one more chance to him to improve his conduct. Therefore, I direct stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect by modifying the impugned order to this effect and he is directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but he will not be eligible for any back wages except for subsistence allowance.
3. The appellants called in question the validity and correctness of this order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants urged that the learned Single Judge was not right and justified in modifying the order of punishment, having observed that the respondent was a habitual offender and due to dereliction of duties, the punishment of stoppage of increments for three years was already ordered in 1984 and that there was no improvement in the conduct of the respondent. He alternatively submitted even if the learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment imposed was grossly or shockingly disproportionate, punishment could not have been modified but the matter could be remitted to the disciplinary authority to re-examine the issue in regard to the imposition of penalty on the respondent. He further submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the merits of the contentions and simply endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
5. Per contra, Shri R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order. He contended that even the finding of fact also was not recorded after a proper enquiry. He also contended that the respondent was promoted even after the punishment was imposed on 13th November, 1988 before the framing of the present charges.
6. As is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge there has been no consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case including as to the nature of charges held proved against the respondent to say that penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent was extreme. Merely because it was felt that the punishment imposed was extreme was not enough to disturb or modify the punishment imposed on a delinquent officer. The learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons to say as to how the punishment imposed on the respondent was shockingly or grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges held proved against the respondent. It is not that in every case of imposing a punishment of removal or dismissal from service a High Court can modify such punishment merely saying that it is shockingly disproportionate. Normally, the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by high court or tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works.
7. In the present case we do not find that there has been a consideration of all the relevant facts and the learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons in order to modify the punishment imposed. The Division Bench of the High Court also did not examine the matter in proper perspective but simply concurred with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Normally in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, high courts or tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. In this case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1989 and to shorten the litigation we think it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the writ appeal No.952 of 1998 to the Division Bench of the High Court to reconsider the case only on the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent having regard to all relevant factors including the facts that the respondent was a member of Railway Protection Force and in the light of the observations made above. Since the proceedings are pending for quite some time, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is ordered in the above terms. No costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed accordingly.
***************