The Supreme Court has opined that unless the findings of the Departmental inquiry are patently perverse, grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, or the principles of natural justice are not followed, Courts should not interfere with the decision. It was further expounded that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to award punishment considering the gravity of the offences. The High Court or Tribunal while exercising powers of Judicial Review cannot engage in reappreciating evidence to arrive at its conclusion. Unless the punishment is so disproportionate to the offence that it shocks the conscience of the High Court of the Tribunal, the High Court of the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings.
Brief Facts:
The Respondent worked as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as “CISF”). One day he was working as per his shift schedule and the next day the police intercepted a truck carrying copper wires outside the port premises. The Police informed CISF about the copper wires being removed from the Kolkata Port Trust Area. The said wires were removed when the Respondent was on duty.
Thereafter, the Respondent was suspended and two charges were framed against him. An inquiry was conducted and the Respondent did not produce any witness in his defence. later, Inquiry Officer recorded that the charges against the Respondent were duly proved. Further, the Disciplinary Authority rejected the Respondent’s argument that the FIR which was recorded proves that theft did not take place during the duty hours of the Respondent.
The Respondent was dismissed from his service as a penalty and against this order, an appeal was preferred by the Respondent. Even a revision petition was filed by the Respondent which was dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Calcutta and the same was disposed of by the Court recording that the punishment of dismissal be converted to compulsory retirement along with all consequential benefits on the ground that the relevant records of the case were not preserved by the concerned authorities.
The said order of the High Court was challenged by the Appellants wherein the order of converting punishment to compulsory retirement was set aside and Respondent was reinstated in service along with full back wages. The Appellants were further directed to award punishment proportionate to the negligence and dereliction of duty by the Respondent.
It is against this order that the Appellant has filed the present appeal. The Respondents on the other hand have filed an appeal against the order vide which the concerned Authority was directed to issue a fresh order of punishment.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the High Court while directing the reinstatement of Respondent has acted as an Appellate Authority which is contrary to the law as no grievance was raised by the Respondent that rules of natural justice were violated or that inquiry conducted was improper. It was contended that there was no ground or good reason to pass an order for converting punishment to compulsory retirement and then further directing reinstatement with full back wages.
It was further argued that the High Court cannot judicially review the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the Division Bench was unjustified in passing an order directing the Authority to issue a fresh order of punishment instead the appeals should have been dismissed and the order vide which punishment was converted to compulsory retirement should have been restored.
Observations of the Court:
It was remarked by the Supreme Court that unless the findings of the Departmental inquiry are patently perverse, grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, or the principles of natural justice are not followed, Courts should not interfere with the decision.
Relying on previous judgments in this regard, the Top Court summarized the legal provision by opining that both Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have exclusive power to examine the evidence. The Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to award punishment considering the gravity of the offences. However, the High Court or Tribunal while exercising powers of Judicial Review cannot engage in reappreciating evidence to arrive at its conclusion. Unless the punishment is so disproportionate to the offence that it shocks the conscience of the High Court of the Tribunal, the High Court of the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings.
The Apex Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded and appreciated every piece of evidence with minute details and the decision of the Authority was even approved by the Appellate and Revisional Authority. The orders passed by the Single Bench converting punishment to compulsory retirement and the Division Bench directing reinstatement with full back wages were declared as an attempt to reappreciate evidence which is not allowed while exercising powers of Judicial Review.
The Bench agreed with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and held that the Respondent ought to have performed his duty with due care and attention. The past conduct of the Respondent reveals that during his thirteen years of service, he was awarded 8 punishments and has still not mended his ways.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeals filed by the Appellant and opined that the penalty of dismissal from service is proportionate to the conduct of the Respondent and accordingly, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Respondent.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. V. Subrata Nath
Citation: 2022 Latest Caselaw 928 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7939-7940 of 2022
Advocates for Appellant: Ms. Akanksha Kaul
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee
Picture Source :