Sakal Deep Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Barin Ghosh and Ajay Kumar Tripathi, JJ.—Proportionality is now acknowledged as one of the basic parametres for awarding a punishment in a disciplinary proceeding. The writ petitioner being dis-satisfied on that score, approached the appellate authority, then the revisional authority and ultimately the writ court. In the appeal too at the admission stage the petitioner pressed his grievance in relation thereto only. On that ground the appeal had been admitted.

According to the petitioner, after he having served without any complain for a period of 13 years, he was asked to undertake out station duty and due to his illness he could not undertake such duty. Four days thereafter he attended the out station duty and for that he has been dismissed from service.

It appears that two charges were levelled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. The second charge was not of much substance. It was alleged that when the chargesheet for the first charge was served upon the petitioner, he flatly refused to acknowledge receipt thereof. However, the first charge was quite substantial in nature. It held out that the petitioner had been ordered to move for out station duty, when he flatly refused to carry out the order.

In course of enquiry it transpired that the petitioner was asked to discharge out station duty while he was on in station duty. He was not on leave at the time when he was asked to discharge out station duty. The defence was that the petitioner was not in appropriate physical condition to carry out station duty although he was somehow managing to discharge in station duty.

It was not found in course of enquiry that the medical certificate, upon which the petitioner relied, was obtained by the petitioner the moment he was asked to discharge out station duty. In such circumstances, we find that the only logical conclusion would be that the petitioner on being asked to discharge out station duty flatly refused to carry out the direction, as was the charge.

The petitioner was not a civil employee of the government. He was a member of an armed force of the government. The engagement of the petitioner was made for the purpose of protecting various industrial assets of the government. Such an armed personnel of the government if refuses to discharge his allotted duty, the government may suffer such loss, which may not be compensated in money.

In such circumstances, the charge, as was proved, is such a misconduct which may entail any punishment including punishment of dismissal and accordingly it cannot be said that the punishment as meted out is disproportionate to the cause complained of.

We therefore find no reason to interfere with the quantam of punishment. In such circumstances, this appeal is dismissed.