2003 JTR(SC) 838
2003 11 AIC 494 ; 2003 AIR(SC) 3712 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 4222 ; 2004 1 AllCJ 145 ; 2003 5 AWC 4343 ; 2004 1 BBCJ(SC) 123 ; 2003 103 FJR 610 ; 2003 99 FLR 111 ; 2003 3 JKJ(SC) 113 ; 2003 7 JT 509 ; 2003 LIC 3146 ; 2003 3 LLJ 823 ; 2003 4 LLN 37 ; 2003 4 RSJ 625 ; 2003 7 Scale 122 ; 2003 8 SCC 9 ; 2003 SCC(L&S) 1198 ; 2003 4 SCT 249 ; 2003 6 SLR 711 ; 2003 UD 356 ; 2003 3 UPLBEC 2613 ; 2003 KHC 1576 ; 2003 3 KLT(Online) 1230 ; 2003 6 Supreme 482
2003(6) Supreme 482
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Dev Singh -Appellant
versus
Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6918 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8462 of 2002)
Decided on 2-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Nidhesh Gupta and Yash Pal Dhingra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Prabhat Kumar and Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Punishment of dismissal for mere misplacement of a file without any ulterior motive is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The provisions of the Service Law, specifically the Service By-Laws of the relevant Corporation, govern the disciplinary proceedings and permissible punishments for misconduct by employees. In this case, By-Law 18 of The Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Service By-Laws provided the framework for addressing the alleged misconduct of misplacement of a file by the appellant, who was an employee in a senior assistant role. The application of these provisions by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent appeal to the High Court and this Court were assessed under the principles governing judicial review of administrative action in service matters.
(B) Key legal principles include that appellate courts will not ordinarily substitute their view on the quantum of punishment unless the sentence shocks the conscience or is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct. Courts are generally deferential to findings of misconduct and the disciplinary authoritys choice of punishment, but they may intervene and modify the sentence if it is manifestly excessive or disproportionate. The punishment must be proportionate to the nature of the offense and the absence of any motive or prior record is a relevant factor in determining the appropriate quantum of punishment.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Senior Assistant employed by the Corporation since 1981 with an unblemished service record, was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry for misplacing a file entrusted to him. No allegation of deliberate action or improper motive was made. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty, and the disciplinary authority, viewing the misconduct as serious for potential record security, imposed dismissal. The appellant challenged the dismissal through a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in challenging the finding of misconduct, acknowledging that the misplacement occurred. However, it held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate as there was no allegation of deliberate or motivated misconduct, and the file misplacement could at most be negligent. The Court noted that the Service By-Laws provided for minor punishments and questioned why the maximum punishment was imposed for the facts of the case, which shocked the judicial conscience.
Issues:
Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in awarding the maximum punishment of dismissal for an isolated file misplacement without any allegation of deliberate or motivated misconduct, and whether the punishment was proportionate to the offense in the absence of prior misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that in the absence of deliberate or wrongful intent, and given the unblemished service record of the appellant, the punishment of dismissal was wholly disproportionate and shocking to the conscience. The appropriate remedy was to substitute the punishment with a lesser penalty, such as withholding of one increment and stoppage at the efficiency bar, while upholding the finding of misconduct.
Result:
The appeal was allowed partly; the dismissal was set aside and substituted with a punishment of withholding of one increment along with stoppage at the efficiency bar. The appellant was not entitled to back wages during the period of suspension but was entitled to subsistence allowance up to the date of the dismissal order.
(A) The provisions of the Service Law, specifically the Service By-Laws of the relevant Corporation, govern the disciplinary proceedings and permissible punishments for misconduct by employees. In this case, By-Law 18 of The Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Service By-Laws provided the framework for addressing the alleged misconduct of misplacement of a file by the appellant, who was an employee in a senior assistant role. The application of these provisions by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent appeal to the High Court and this Court were assessed under the principles governing judicial review of administrative action in service matters.
(B) Key legal principles include that appellate courts will not ordinarily substitute their view on the quantum of punishment unless the sentence shocks the conscience or is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct. Courts are generally deferential to findings of misconduct and the disciplinary authoritys choice of punishment, but they may intervene and modify the sentence if it is manifestly excessive or disproportionate. The punishment must be proportionate to the nature of the offense and the absence of any motive or prior record is a relevant factor in determining the appropriate quantum of punishment.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Senior Assistant employed by the Corporation since 1981 with an unblemished service record, was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry for misplacing a file entrusted to him. No allegation of deliberate action or improper motive was made. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty, and the disciplinary authority, viewing the misconduct as serious for potential record security, imposed dismissal. The appellant challenged the dismissal through a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in challenging the finding of misconduct, acknowledging that the misplacement occurred. However, it held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate as there was no allegation of deliberate or motivated misconduct, and the file misplacement could at most be negligent. The Court noted that the Service By-Laws provided for minor punishments and questioned why the maximum punishment was imposed for the facts of the case, which shocked the judicial conscience.
Issues:
Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in awarding the maximum punishment of dismissal for an isolated file misplacement without any allegation of deliberate or motivated misconduct, and whether the punishment was proportionate to the offense in the absence of prior misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that in the absence of deliberate or wrongful intent, and given the unblemished service record of the appellant, the punishment of dismissal was wholly disproportionate and shocking to the conscience. The appropriate remedy was to substitute the punishment with a lesser penalty, such as withholding of one increment and stoppage at the efficiency bar, while upholding the finding of misconduct.
Result:
The appeal was allowed partly; the dismissal was set aside and substituted with a punishment of withholding of one increment along with stoppage at the efficiency bar. The appellant was not entitled to back wages during the period of suspension but was entitled to subsistence allowance up to the date of the dismissal order.
JUDGMENT
Santosh Hegde, J.-Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant while serving as a Senior Assistant in the respondent-Corporation was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on the ground that he was responsible for the misplacement of a file which was entrusted to him, which according to the Corporation amounted to a misconduct under By-Law 18 of The Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Service By Laws. In the inquiry that was held pursuant to the above said charge, the appellant was found guilty of the said misconduct and the disciplinary authority as per his order dated 6th November, 2001 while confirming the finding of the Inquiry Officer found the case to be a fit one in which a punishment of dismissal was called for and accordingly he ordered the dismissal of the appellant from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect. The appellant challenged to the said order by way of a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order, hence, the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Though learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer on various grounds, having heard the arguments in this regard and having perused the record, we find no reason to disagree with the findings as to the misconduct committed by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the appellant has been serving the Corporation since 1981 with unblemished record and there was no earlier charge of misconduct prior to the present charge. He also contended that the charge against the appellant was that of misplacement of a file and no motive was attached for such misplacement of file. In such a situation to award the extreme punishment of dismissal according to the learned counsel would not only amount to a disproportionate punishment but also should disturb the conscience of this Court. The learned counsel in support of his argument, that it is open to the superior court to interfere with the quantum of punishment in a given set of facts, has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Bhagat Ram vs. State of H.P. (1983 2 SCC 442), Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India (1987 4 SCC 611) and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. (2000 3 SCC 450).
5. A perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that a court sitting in appeal against a punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty, however, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court, then the court would appropriately mould the relief either by directing the disciplinary/appropriate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation its may make an exception in rare cases and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. It is also clear from the above noted judgments of this Court, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer, then the court would interfere in such a case.
6. Applying the said principles laid down by this Court in the cases noted herein above, we see that in this case the appellant has been serving the respondent Corporation for nearly 20 years with unblemished service, before the present charge of misconduct was levelled against him. The charge itself shows that what was alleged against the appellant was of a misplacement of a file and there is no allegation whatsoever that this file was either misplaced by the appellant deliberately or for any collateral consideration. A reading of the charge sheet shows that the misplacement alleged was not motivated by any ulterior consideration and at the most could be an act of negligence, consequent to which the appellant was unable to trace the file again. The disciplinary authority while considering the quantum of punishment came to the conclusion that the misconduct of the nature alleged against the appellant should be viewed very seriously to prevent such actions in future whereby important and sensitive records could be lost or removed or destroyed by the employee under whose custody the records are kept. Therefore, he was of the opinion a deterrent punishment was called for. Forgetting for a moment that no such allegation of misplacing of important or sensitive record was made in the instant case against the appellant and what he was charged of was misplacement of a file importance or sensitiveness of which was not mentioned in the charge sheet. Therefore, in our opinion, the disciplinary authority was guided by certain facts which were not on record, even otherwise, we are of the opinion that when the Service By-Laws applicable to the Corporation under Service By-Laws 17 provide various minor punishments, we fail to appreciate why only maximum punishment available under the said By-laws should be awarded on the facts of the present case. We think the punishment of dismissal for mere misplacement of a file without any ulterior motive is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and the same certainly shocks our judicial conscience. Hence, having considered the basis on which the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the appellant and the facts and circumstances of this case, we think to avoid further prolonged litigation it would be appropriate if we modify the punishment ourselves. On the said basis, while upholding the finding of misconduct against the appellant, we think it appropriate that the appellant be imposed a punishment of withholding of one increment including stoppage at the efficiency bar in substitution of the punishment of dismissal awarded by the disciplinary authority. We further direct that the appellant will not be entitled to any back wages for the period of suspension. However, he will be entitled to the subsistence allowance payable upto the date of the dismissal order.
7. With the above modifications, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the disciplinary authority in so far as it directs the dismissal of the appellant, stands substituted as ordered by us herein above.
8. The appeal is allowed partly.
Appeal allowed partly.
****************