Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunny Chaurasia vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2025
M.P. No. 794 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 794 of 2025
SUNNY CHAURASIA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................
Appearance:
(BY SHRI SAMVEG TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER )
(BY SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
...............................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question of
legality, validity and propriety of order dated 03.10.2018 passed by Senior
General Manager, Ordinance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur, whereby the
penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without
cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also
assailed the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by Additional DGOF and Member,
Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated
06.12.2024 passed in O.A. No.227/2020 by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jabalpur, Bench at Jabalpur affirming the orders passed by disciplinary
authority as well as the appellate authority.
3. Heard Shri Samveg Tripathi, Advocate for petitioner on the
question of admission.
4. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was
discharging the duties in the Ordinance Factory, Khamaria as Highly Skilled
Grade-II and on 08.11.2018 he handed over his punching card to Kishore
Kumar and left the factory without intimating to the superior officers and
Kishore Kumar was caught at the time of punching his card. Upon the said
allegation, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and in reply, the petitioner
had admitted his guilt however, submitted explanation that his mother was
suffering from cancer and he received an information that she has fell sick all
of sudden therefore, he left the factory to take his mother to the hospital and
handed over his punching card to Kishore Kumar.
5. As the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the
explanation supplied by the petitioner passed the order on 03.10.2018,
whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year
without cumulative effect was imposed from the date of order. Order of
disciplinary authority was assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate
Authority who rejected the appeal by order dated 25.11.2019 and, therefore,
the petitioner preferred Original Application No.227 of 2020 before CAT,
Jabalpur, which was also dismissed by order dated 06.12.2024.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the penalty which
was imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate as for the misconduct
of similar nature, another employee Shri Lal Bahadur Rai was imposed the
punishment of censure only, whereas the petitioner was awarded greater
penalty, which amounts to hostile discrimination. He further submits that in
the original application filed before CAT, Jabalpur, the petitioner relied upon
the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in the matter of TELCO Ltd. Vs.
Jitendra PD Singh reported in (2001) 10 SCC 530 and Rajendra Yadav Vs.
State of M.P. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73, whereby the Supreme Court has
held that in the matter of almost identical charges of misconduct with the
same incident, it would be denial of justice, if the different punishment is
awarded to different employees. He further submits that these judgments were
not considered by CAT, Jabalpur and, therefore, the order passed by Tribunal
is erroneous, illegal, unjust and liable to be set aside.
7. Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of Union of India on advance copy supported the order
passed by Tribunal and submits that no case of discrimination is made out. He
further submits that the petitioner had already accepted the guilt and the
punishment which was awarded to the petitioner is insufficient and the
disciplinary authority had taken very lenient view in the case of petitioner. He
prays for dismissal of petition.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the
parties and perused the documents available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had handed over his
punching card to Kishore Kumar for the purpose of punching the same and
left the factory without any intimation. The petitioner was served with the
charge-sheet and he accepted his guilt in reply with the explanation. The
punishment imposed upon the petitioner for reduction of pay for a period of
one year without cumulative effect by the disciplinary authority, cannot be
held to be excessive or disproportionate. When the petitioner has accepted the
charges, the disciplinary authority was having discretion to impose any kind
of minor penalty and the disciplinary authority has imposed the aforesaid
penalty. The Tribunal has examined the scope of judicial review in
disciplinary matters and held that judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. By relying
the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs.
Union of India and Ors. reported in 1996 SCC (L & S) 80, the Tribunal has
held that the decision of disciplinary authority was not illogical or suffers
from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscious of the Court
and, therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered.
10. The Tribunal has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court
in the matter of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another Vs.
Munna Lal Jain reported in (2005) 10 SCC 84 and Union of India Vs. K.G.
Soni 2006 SCC (L & S) 1568 and held that the admission is the best piece of
evidence against a person making the admission and in a disciplinary
proceedings, if the charged officer admits the charged framed against him or
makes an unconditional/unqualified confession, there is nothing more to be
done by way of an enquiry.
11. In the present matter also, the petitioner accepted the charges
and in reply tried to supply the explanation, which was not satisfactory and,
therefore the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment on the petitioner
as per his discretion. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is
not shocking to the conscious of the Court or illogical or suffers from
procedural impropriety and, therefore there is no scope to interfere in the
decision. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the
decision making process and not the decision. The Tribunal has pointed out
that the disciplinary authority had taken a lenient view in the case of the
petitioner and the petitioner has already undergone the period of punishment,
which was imposed upon him by virtue of his own admission and on the basis
of departmental enquiry.
12. So far as the judgments relied by petitioner delivered in the
matter of TELCO Ltd. (supra) and Rajendra Yadav (supra), the same are not
helpful to the petitioner as in the matter of TELCO Ltd. (supra) three
workmen were charged for guilty of misconduct in connection with same
incident however, awarded different punishment and under these
circumstances, Supreme Court has held that when the two others were
awarded only one month suspension, punishment of dismissal from service to
third one was inappropriate. In the matter of Rajendra Yadav (supra), the
disciplinary authority imposed the punishment which was disproportionate as
lesser punishment was imposed for serious offences and stringent punishment
was imposed for lesser offences. Under these circumstances, the Supreme
Court had interfered in the matter however, in the present matter, one Lal
Bahadur Rai was awarded censure upon the similar allegations and the
petitioner has been awarded the reduction of pay by one stage for a period of
one year without cumulative effect. The same cannot be treated as
discrimination because both the employees were not charged with the same
incident, the disciplinary authorities were different and the post of the
employees were also different. Different disciplinary authorities exercised
their discretionary powers differently more so, petitioner admitted the
allegations, whereas Lal Bahadur Rai denied the same. By no stretch of
imagination, it can be accepted that the petitioner and Lal Bahadur Rai were
on similar footing. The Tribunal has not committed any error in not
mentioning the judgments relied by the petitioner, as the same are not relevant
and applicable to the case in hand.
13. Consequently, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the
penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was disproportionate to the act
of petitioner or during the enquiry proper procedure was not adopted. Under
these circumstances, no case for interference in the order passed by
Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Tribunal is made out and
resultantly, the admission is declined.
14. Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shub
SHUBHAM Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER
DN: c=IN, o=HIGHT COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=GOVERMENT,
2.5.4.20=9ae0b4c3f8dbec36692c45b55d89f22c2ad48e7930accbade871ee
3495c5a9d8, postalCode=482001, st=MADHYA PRADESH,
THAKKER
serialNumber=086CC2FDA1069ABFC2CE779B66622BD02EEAD5773A0DCE
2947571D5FE6005A56, cn=SHUBHAM THAKKER
Date: 2025.02.20 15:53:57 +05'30'
