GOVERNMENT
OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION (SER.C) DEPT.
Memo.No.107309/Ser.C/2003
Dated:
03-09-2003
Sub: Punishments
imposed by the Disciplinary authorities should not be Modified by the High
Court or Tribunal - Supreme Court Judgement Issue of Instructions - Regarding.
It
has been brought to the notice of the Government that in a large number of
cases in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has been setting
aside or substantially reducing the penalties imposed in disciplinary cases
even though it is the settled law that the Tribunal or the High Court should
not interfere with the disciplinary authorities’ decisions unless in a specific
case the punishment awarded shocks judicial conscience. Such cases will
obviously be few and far between. The Supreme Court again in Director General,
RPF vs. Ch.Sai Babu case (in Supreme Today journal 2003 (4) Supreme 313)
pronounced judgement on 29.1.2003 setting aside the Division Bench decision of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case and held that "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. 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".
2. A copy of the judgement is forwarded to
all the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and the Government
Pleaders dealing with service matters in the A.P.A.T. ait the High Court with a
request to see that the Tribunal and the High Court decisions are strictly in
conformity with the above ruling. It is requested to examine such judgement if
any, in the light of this Supreme Court ruling and take immediate steps to
appeal against any such decisions and to strictly follow the above
instructions. They shall also bring these instructions to the notice of their
subordinates for their guidance and compliance.
3. The receipt of this memo may be
acknowledged.
B.
ARAVINDA REDDY
Secretary
to Government.
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 29.01.2003
Railway
Protection Force Rules,1987-Rule 153-Charge sheet under framing five charges of
misconduct - After enquiry charges found proved - Punishment of removal from
service awarded - High Court finding punishment disproportionate to charges
proved - Modified it to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect -
Appeal against to Supreme Court - Whether High Court was right in modifying the
punishment in the facts of the case? (No, case remanded to D.B. for reconsideration
on the quantum of punishment imposed) - Appeal allowed accordingly.
Held:
Normally, the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority should not be
disturbed by High court or Tribunal except in appropriate case 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. 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 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. (Paras 6 and 7)
Counsel
for the Parties:
For the Appellants:
Mukul Rohatgi, Addi. Solicitor General, S. Wasim, A. Quadri, Mrs. Anil Kaityar,
Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the
Respondent: R.S. Hegde, Allam Nagabushanam, Ms.N.Annapoorna, Advocates.
IMPORTANT
POINT
Normally,
in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority
is shockingly disproportionate, High Court and Tribunals may remit the cases to
the disciplinary authority for reconsideration the quantum of punishment.
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 ~s 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 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 write appeal expeditiously. The
impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is ordered in the above terms. No
costs.
Appeal
is allowed accordingly.
