AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyabrata Sinha, CJ
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26-2-1998, passed by the APART at Hyderabad in OA No.10431 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent herein was set aside directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent herein into service. It was further directed that the period of suspension of the respondent herein from 16-10-1986 till his reinstatement into service should be treated in accordance with the provisions of FR 54-B of the Fundamental Rules.
The learned Tribunal, having regard to the fact of the matter, held that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, inflicted upon the respondent herein is too severe and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by him. It was noticed that the respondent herein was declared a deserter by order dated 16-10-1986 merely on the ground that he absented himself without leave or permission with effect from 23-9-1986 for a period of 21 days.
Having regard to the finding arrived at by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal instead of setting aside the punishment imposed upon the respondent herein, ought to have remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposition of appropriate punishment. There cannot be any doubt having regard to the proposition of law that in a given case the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment. However, such interference would be called for only when it is shown that the punishment imposed is irrational so as to attract the principles of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Article 14 of the Constitution of the Constitution of India brings within its sweep the concept of unreasonableness, and once it is found as of fact that the administrative action is unreasonable, it attracts the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the Tribunal or the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to set aside the same. Apart from the decisions of the apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, and Union of India and another Vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs., , referred to by the Tribunal, we may notice a recent judgment of the apex Court in O.M. Kumar v. Union of India AIR 2000 SCW 4361, which has also taken the same view.
For the reasons afore-mentioned, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions :
The impugned order cannot be sustained, and it is accordingly set aside. OA No.10431 of 1990, filed by respondent herein is allowed to the extent that the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing such punishment as it may deem fit and proper having regard to the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent herein. No costs.