Allahabad High Court
U.O.I.Thru. Secy. Home Affairs ... vs Suresh Chandra on 1 July, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44727-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 202 of 2021
Appellant :- U.O.I.Thru. Secy. Home Affairs Ministry New Delhi And Ors.
Respondent :- Suresh Chandra
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Arti Ganguly,Hemant Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard.
2. This is an appeal by the Union of India challenging the judgment and order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.19387 (S/S) of 2016 [Suresh Chandra vs. Union of India]. The appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the writ court has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the question of quantum of punishment and making an observation that in the facts of the case, termination order is definitely disproportionate to the alleged negligence committed by the petitioner. This conclusion has been arrived at based on a cryptic finding that in the case at hand the petitioner was charged for the loss of two SLR Magazines with 40 round cartridges while he was travelling from Lucknow to New Delhi and it is the admitted fact that in the entire service period, the petitioner has discharged his services with utmost devotion and due diligence without any complaint. The Writ Court has further quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement of petitioner-respondent herein leaving it open to the competent authority to pass appropriate order of sentence looking into the seriousness of the offence. Salary from the date of his termination from service along with all consequential benefits has also been ordered. The contention is that while doing so, the writ court has referred to a case of Coker v. Georgia (1977). However, the complete citation is not available in the judgment. Moreover, there are umpteen judgments of Supreme Court of India laying down the scope for interference by the writ court on the question of quantum of punishment. The submission is that the respondent herein was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force and was carrying two SLR Magazines with 40 cartridges and other ammunition with him and was travelling along with other constables etc from Lucknow to Jammu & Kashmir. Midway at New Delhi, two SLR Magazines and 40 cartridges which were in his possession went missing. This fact came to knowledge only when an inquiry was conducted at New Delhi and thereafter, he accepted the fact. Ultimately, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, full-fledged proceedings were held with adequate opportunity of hearing and thereafter, considering the gravity of the offence, the punishment of removal from service was imposed and for the loss caused separate proceedings were initiated and recovery of the loss was ordered. Two separate orders were passed. The punishment order is dated 30.01.1999 and the recovery order is dated 20.10.1998. The order of recovery had not been challenged by the respondent which itself goes to show that he accepted the guilt.
4. On the other hand, Sri H.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has an impeccable service record and he has been awarded for his services several time and has also served in Sri-Lanka and naxal infected areas. He did not commit any misconduct. At best, it was a trivial lapse for which the punishment of removal was highly unjustified, disproportionate and excessive.
5. Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has refuted the said contention submitting that the loss of two SLR Magazines with 40 round cartridges was not a trivial lapse as these could find their way in the hands of terrorists and could be used against the citizens of this country.
6. The relevant extract of the judgment of the writ court is quoted hereinbelow:-
"I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent of quantum of punishment and vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the competent authority is irrational and perverse as the same has been passed against the doctrine of proportionality.
After confinement of the prayer of the petitioner, the only question remains that whether the punishment given to the petitioner is disproportionate from the charges.
It is settled law that punishment should be proportional to the crime that was committed by the individual. Justice White, in Coker v. Georgia (1977), laid out the rules for determining proportionality of a crime. A punishment can be deemed "excessive" and therefore unconstitutional if it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.
In the case in hand, the petitioner was charged for the loss of two SLR Magazines with 40 round cartridges while he was travelling from Lucknow to New Delhi. It is also admitted fact that in the entire service period, the petitioner had discharged his services with utmost devotion and due diligence without any complaint.
Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner and his past services, I am of the opinion that the termination order is definitely disproportionate for the alleged negligence committed by petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 30.01.1999 is set aside to the extent of the punishment/ sentence leaving it open to the competent authority to pass appropriate order of sentence looking to the seriousness of the offence.
The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his termination and pay him salary with all consequential benefits.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed."
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we are of the opinion that the cryptic observations which are the basis for quashing of order of punishment do not justify the impugned judgment. The law on the subject of quantum of punishment and scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this court has not been considered as was required. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2021. Consequently, the writ petition stands restored. The petition shall now be listed before the writ court on 24.07.2024 amongst first ten cases of the day. We request learned Single Judge to kindly consider and dispose of the writ petition at the earliest. All relevant pleas are open for consideration by the writ court.
8. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
Shanu/-
