AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijender Jain, J.—Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is disproportionate to the article of charges. She has further contended that during the course of enquiry the medical certificates were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent. She has further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. B.R. Sharma 2002 (1) FLJ 53. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgment of the Division Bench of this court came after the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. R.K. Sharma, on which reliance has been placed by the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case may be considered on compassionate ground and the quantum of punishment be reduced by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has also cited Parimal Singh Vs. Union of India & others 2002 (1) FLJ 48, a single Bench decision of this Court and has contended that this Court should take a lenient view on compassionate grounds and the punishment be reduced.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (supra) has laid down that while exercising power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this court will not interfere in the punishment imposed by the authorities on account of same being disproportionate. He has further contended that it is not a case which will fall within the ambit of punishment being perverse or irrational.
I am afraid in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (supra), this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, will not lightly interfere in the awarded punishment until and unless the order is wholly perverse or irrational.
No ground to interfere. Dismissed.