State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Singh Bhuria

This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 28.8.19 passed by learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by

the respondent-writ petitioner assailing the order dated 18.4.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service, has been partly

allowed and the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has been substituted with that of compulsory retirement.

It is further directed that the respondent shall be entitled for all the benefits arising out of compulsory retirement.

The appeal reported to be barred by 21 days, is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application is not opposed

by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The facts relevant are that the respondent entered the services of the appellant on being appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC). A

memorandum of charge dated 24.5.96 came to be issued by the State Government initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil

Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ""the Rules of 1958"") against the respondent and two others namely, Rajendra

Kumar Nadhediya, District Transport Officer and Shri Jahid Ali, Assistant Transport Inspector. The charge levelled against the respondent was that

while working as LDC in the office of District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu, on 24.4.95 he did registration of Truck No.RJ-18-G- 0526 without

verifying chassis number and without taking proceedings as per prescribed Form No.21 and 22.

The respondent filed reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations. The categorical stand of the respondent was that as per the Motor

Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder, only District Transport Officer is authorised for registration of the vehicle and the duties of the LDC are

only to take further proceedings/make compliance of order passed by the competent authority. The respondent denied to have indulged in any

irregularity while processing the application form for registration of the vehicle.

After due inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report holding the respondent guilty of the charge. The inquiry report was made available

to the respondent, who submitted his representation against the finding of the Inquiry Officer. However, the explanation furnished by the respondent

was not found satisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, vide order dated 18.4.2000 penalty of dismissal from service was imposed

upon him.

The legality of the order of dismissal was questioned by the respondent by way of writ petition before this Court on various grounds. However, the

respondent given up his challenge to the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and restricted the challenge to the order of dismissal

only on quantum of punishment.

Precisely, the contention of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent had rendered unblemished service for 37 years

and therefore, looking at the gravity of misconduct proved, the penalty of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate. The learned Single

Judge after due consideration of the rival submissions arrived at the finding that looking at the unblemished long service of the respondent, the

punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate and accordingly, reduced the penalty imposed from

dismissal to compulsory retirement. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the charge found proved against the respondent was of serious nature inasmuch as

wrong registration of a vehicle has serious consequences and thus, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in interfering with the order of

punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel submitted that it is not the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the

punishment imposed upon the respondent, a delinquent employee, is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved and therefore,

there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of extra ordinary

jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent had served the appellant for 37 years and there was no

loss caused to the appellant on account of the act of misdemeanor. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondent was not

responsible for the registration of the vehicle inasmuch as, under the law only District Transport Officer is authorised to register the vehicle and thus,

the lapses if any, on the part of the respondent in processing the application form, cannot be considered to be serious misconduct warranting dismissal

from service, ignoring the unblemished service career of the respondent for 37 years and therefore, the punishment of dismissal imposed being

shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in substituting the punishment of

dismissal by that of compulsory retirement from service.

We have considered the submissions of the counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder, the District Transport Officer is authorised to register a vehicle.

It was not the allegation against the respondent that he indulged in any illegality or irregularity in processing the application for wrongful gain. Thus, on

the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the unblemished service career of the respondent was also a relevant consideration to be taken note of

by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.

It is true that the Disciplinary Authority has discretion to impose appropriate punishment for the misconduct proved but any penalty imposed which

is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved would be per se violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The punishment

to be imposed upon delinquent employee must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved and if the punishment imposed is found to be

unduly harsh, lacks rationality, the same could be corrected by this Court by exercising power of judicial review in exercise of its extra ordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Ors.: AIR 2016 SC 101, the Supreme Court observed:

It is a settled principle of law that once the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to

decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature

and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the

delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules.

Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the Courts are slow to

interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment.

Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly

unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscious of the Court or when it is found to be

in contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other punishment as against

what was originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the (6 of 6) [SAW-1657/2019] appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute the

punishment by itself instead of remitting to the appointing authority.

As discussed above, looking at the gravity of the misconduct proved and other circumstances of the case where the respondent had 37 years of

unblemished service career, in the considered opinion of this Court, for single lapse on his part in processing the application seeking registration

appropriately, the penalty from dismissal from service imposed was certainly excessive, unjust, arbitrary and shockingly disproportionate and thus, the

learned Single Judge has committed no error in interfering with the order of punishment and reducing the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority from dismissal to compulsory retirement.

For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The order impugned does not warrant any

interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction.

The appeal is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.