Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 4 Others vs Dharam Prakash Agarwal on 5 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15975-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1362 of 2025
Petitioner :- Union of India and 4 others
Respondent :- Dharam Prakash Agarwal
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Prakash Singh (A.S.G.I.) with Gaurav Bishan
Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Mathur, Amardeo Singh
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent has been partly allowed, the punishment of removal dated 28.03.1991 has been set aside and punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed. Further directions have been given to accord the consequential benefits to the respondent within a period of four months.
2. The Original Application was filed by the respondent aggrieved of the order of punishment dated 28.03.1991 imposing penalty of removal, appellate order dated 14/18.07.1992 and revisional order dated 29.11.2017 rejecting the revision petition filed by the respondent.
3. It was inter alia indicated in the Original Application that respondent joined the services of the railways on 12.11.1957, he was promoted to the post of Chargeman 'A' on 09.09.1987 and completed service of 33 years 04 months and 28 days. A First Information Report was lodged against the tenant of the respondent wherein he was also implicated. The respondent applied for leave from 13.02.1990 to 15.02.1990, his bail was rejected on the date of arrest and was granted on 22.03.1990. On account of his arrest, the respondent was placed under deemed suspension by order dated 16.02.1990. He was issued a charge sheet for concealing the fact of arrest and on an enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 28.03.1991, passed the order of removal from service. The appeal filed against order of removal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 14/18.07.1992 and the Revisional Authority decided the revision/review petition after about 25 years, on 29.11.2017. Various submissions were made seeking to question the imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority and the fact that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were not based on any evidence.
4. The plea was contested by the respondent. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no procedural flaw in the conduct of enquiry and to that extent the plea raised in the Original Application had no substance. On quantum of punishment, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the same was not commensurate with the gravity of charges levelled and the same was disproportionate and shocking to the conscience of the Tribunal and, consequently, set aside the punishment of removal from service and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment. Submissions have been made that once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no procedural flaw in the enquiry conducted, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to then interfere with the quantum of punishment. It was submitted that in any case, the Tribunal could have remanded back the matter for consideration by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority and on that count, the order impugned deserves to be quashed.
6. A further apprehension was expressed that as the Tribunal has ordered for the grant of consequential benefits to the respondent, the same is likely to be misconstrued and, therefore, to that extent the order requires a clarification. Reliance was placed on Union of India and others Vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan : (2022) 1 SCC 373.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. Submissions were made that the respondent had served for more than 33 years and was proceeded against in a criminal case unrelated to his service and in the said criminal case also he was ultimately acquitted by the criminal court. Submissions have been made that for the allegation pertaining to non-disclosure of fact of arrest at the relevant time, imposition of punishment of removal from service which would wipe off his unblemished service of more than 33 years, was wholly unjustified and, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in substituting the punishment with compulsory retirement. It was submitted that the Appellate Authority decided the appeal in 1992 and though the revision was filed in time, the same was decided after a gap of 25 years. The respondent is already aged 83 years and has been deprived of all his retiral benefits for his service of 33 years and, therefore, in those circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in not remanding back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority and as such the order impugned does not require any interference.
8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
9. The facts are not in dispute wherein the Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no flaw in the procedure adopted by the petitioners during enquiry proceedings and the finding of guilt recorded by them was upheld, however, looking to the nature of charges, it found the imposition of punishment of removal from service as excessive/disproportionate and, consequently, substituted it with that of compulsory retirement. The plea raised by the petitioners pertains to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to substitute the punishment, submission made is that the matter should have been remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority.
10. In the case of Ex. Constable Ram Karan (supra), the judgment relied on by petitioners, the Supreme Court has inter alia laid down as under:
"22. The well ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority.
23. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed that even where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty, however, in rare and exceptional cases where the Court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority after assigning cogent reasons.
12. As such, from the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as relied on by the petitioners, in rare and exceptional cases, Courts/Tribunals have the power to substitute its view as to the quantum of punishment.
13. In the present case, as has been noticed, the respondent had served for 33 years 4 months and 28 days when the punishment of removal was imposed on him. The charges against the respondent, pertained to non-disclosure of fact of his being in jail and instead seeking leave. The criminal case also did not pertain to discharge of his duties and even in the criminal case, the respondent was ultimately acquitted by the criminal court. The punishment was imposed on 28.03.1991, the appeal was dismissed on 14/18.07.1992 and the revision/review petition was decided on 29.11.2017 which would show that the revision/review which was filed on 12.08.1992 was decided after a gap of 25 years. In the meanwhile, on 13.04.2011, the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court.
14. At the time of filing of the Original Application in the year 2018, the respondent was aged 77 years and at the time of disposal of the Original Application, he was aged 83 years. The above facts are glaring in nature, insofar as the imposition of punishment of removal is concerned, wherein only on account of non-disclosure of fact of arrest has been made the basis for removing the respondent from service after having served for more than 33 years. Further, the fact that the revision/review was decided after 25 years and the respondent had attained the age of 83 years when the judgment was delivered, the said facts clearly bring the case within rare and exceptional cases wherein the Tribunal, instead of remanding back the matter to the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority, has exercised its jurisdiction to substitute the punishment with compulsory retirement.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Sanya Sahayak and others : (2022) 4 SCC 189, where punishment of dismissal was imposed, held that the same was harsh and directed the respondents therein to convert the penalty to compulsory retirement considering 25 years of long service.
16. Similarly, in Umesh Kumar Pahwa Vs. Board of Directors, Uttarakhand Gramin Bank and others : (2022) 4 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal for the charges proved and misconduct established was too harsh and deemed it proper to substitute from that of removal from service to compulsory retirement.
17. The said judgments apply to the facts of the present case as well and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
18. Coming to the apprehension expressed pertaining to the consequential benefits, there should not be any confusion regarding the entitlement of consequential benefits to the respondent inasmuch as he would be entitled to all those consequential benefits, which he would be entitled in case on 28.03.1991 instead of punishment of removal from service, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. In that view of the matter, the apprehension expressed also has no basis.
19. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025
AHA
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
