AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in A.No.416/2018, dated 04.07.2018 and D.No.A1/9617/2018, dated 05.07.2018, confirming the order of punishment imposed by the second respondent in A.No.526/2010, dated 28.10.2011 and D.No.11583/11, dated 29.10.2011, as well as the consequential order passed by the first respondent in R.O.C.No.333/2012/C1, dated 29.06.2015.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner initially entered service as a Copyist on 06.12.1996 in the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District and owing to his unblemished service, earned several promotions and ultimately reached the post of Head Clerk on 01.10.2019. He was thereafter deputed and posted as Deputy Nazir on 03.08.2022 in the Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
It is submitted that while the petitioner was working as Assistant/Bench Clerk in the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, she was issued with a charge memo, as to documents, namely Exs.A1 and A2 makred in O.S.No.154 of 2009, were missing.
The learned counsel would further submit that, notwithstanding the aforesaid circumstances and the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, by order dated 29.10.2011. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by order dated 29.06.2015 without properly considering the grounds raised by him. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.17273 of 2015, dated 23.09.2015, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the disciplinary authority, which also came to be rejected by the subsequent order dated 04.07.2018. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct and therefore, the same are liable to be interfered with by this Court.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
Admittedly, the petitioner had rendered about 26 years of service and according to the materials placed before this Court, had not suffered any previous punishment during his service. The allegation against the petitioner relates to the handling of the concerned bundle, which was subsequently found to be lacking certain documents. The petitioner had immediately brought the matter to the notice of his superior officers and had also expressed his willingness to lodge a police complaint.
It is further seen that the missing documents were subsequently retrieved from the concerned persons and that no loss was caused to the Department. The circumstances placed before this Court indicate that the petitioner had acted in the course of following the prevailing practice and that there was no material placed before this Court to suggest that she had acted with any mala fide intention or with a view to cause loss to the Department.
At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali v. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 415, wherein the Apex Court, while considering the scope of judicial interference with the punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings, held that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that, in an appropriate case, the Court may interfere with the quantum of punishment where the same is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct established. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder :-
“20.It is a settled principle of law that once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved, it is for the appointing authority to decide the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee in accordance with the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the entire service record of the delinquent employee, and all other relevant factors, exercises its discretion and imposes such punishment as is provided under the Rules.
21.Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in imposing the punishment (whether minor or major), the Courts are slow to interfere with the quantum of punishment and substitute it only in rare and appropriate cases. Such power is exercised only when the Court finds that the delinquent employee has established that the punishment inflicted is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges, thereby shocking the conscience of the Court, or that it is in contravention of the Rules. In such cases, the Court may remit the matter to the appointing authority for imposing any other punishment in accordance with the Rules instead of the punishment originally awarded, or, in an appropriate case, substitute the punishment itself instead of remitting the matter to the appointing authority.”
This Court also takes note of the petitioner's long and otherwise unblemished service. Though the disciplinary authority was justified in taking note of the lapse committed by the petitioner, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly his long service, absence of any previous punishment, the subsequent retrieval of the missing documents and the fact that no loss was caused to the Department, this Court is of the considered view that a lenient view can be taken with regard to the quantum of punishment.
In the above circumstances, without interfering with the finding of misconduct recorded against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment imposed upon him. Accordingly, the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is modified to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. The respondents are directed to extend the consequential benefits to the petitioner, if any, arising out of the modification of punishment.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.