Patna High Court
The Union Of India Through Home ... vs No. 911120653 Hawaldar/General Duty ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.609 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10065 of 2013
======================================================
1. The Union of India through Home Secretary, Government of India, New
Delhi.
2. The Inspector General, CRPF, Bihar Sector, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Deputy Inspector General Administration, Bihar Sector, Patna.
4. The DIG, CRPF, Muzaffarpur Range, Bihar.
5. The DIG, CRPF, Agartala Range, Tripura.
6. The Commandant, 190 Battalion, CRPF, Chatra, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
No. 911120653 Hawaldar/General Duty Datta Singh @ Dhatta Singh S/o Late
Sri Handi Ram, R/o Village- Bajaheda, P.O.- Mudoti, P.S.- Nagar, District-
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akshay Ashish, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-02-2025
Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
2. A Constable was proceeded against
departmentally for remaining absent unauthorisedly for a
period of 13 days. He had remained absent earlier for 36
days also. These two unauthorised absence of the
concerned Sepoy led to his being charge-sheeted on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.609 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
2/7
17.09.2011
and in the departmental proceeding, he was
saddled with the imposition of penalty of compulsory
retirement on 20.03.2012.
3. He challenged the aforenoted punishment
primarily on the ground of it being disproportionate and
harsh, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge
vide his judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed in CWJC No.
10065 of 2013. The learned Single Judge held that such
major penalty of compulsory retirement for unauthorised
absence for few days is too harsh and called for an
interference on that score alone. Certain instances were
quoted by the learned Single Judge where such harsh
punishment was interfered with.
4. As such, the matter was remitted to the
disciplinary authority to impose lesser penalty and extend
all monetary and service benefits to the employee within
the timeline prescribed in the judgment.
5. The primary challenge to this judgment of
remand on the issue of quantum of punishment, asking
Patna High Court L.P.A No.609 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
the disciplinary authority to reduce the punishment on
grounds of proportionality is in a way stated to be
impermissible as this falls in the domain of the
disciplinary authority and the opinion of the Court cannot
be substituted for the same.
6. The issue has remained debatable till date.
7. In Jarnail Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry
of Home Affairs; (1993) 1 SCC 47, it was held that
questioning the quantum of punishment on the ground of
it not being commensurate with the gravity of the
misconduct would not be permissible in law.
8. However, later in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union
of India and Ors.; (1987) 4 SCC 611, the principle of
proportionality was referred to, but it was clarified that a
Court could look into it only if it arrived at a finding that
the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and then
only there could be any interference on that ground.
9. In Union of India and Anr. vs. G.
Ganayutham; (1997) 7 SCC 463, a Division Bench of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.609 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
Supreme Court after surveying all such judgments with
respect to testing the proportionality of the quantum of
punishment in the administrative side and the Court
dealing with as the second Court of review, formulated
and summarized the issue as hereunder:-
"(1) To judge the validity of any
administrative order or statutory
discretion, normally the Wednesbury test
is to be applied to find out if the decision is
illegal or suffered from procedural
improprieties or was one which no sensible
decision-maker could, on the materials
before him and within the framework of
the law, have arrived at.
(2) The court would not interfere with the
administrator's decision unless it was
illegal or suffered from procedural
impropriety or was irrational -- in the
sense that it was outrageous defiance of
logic or moral standards. The possibility of
other tests, including proportionality being
brought into English administrative law in
future is not ruled out.
(3) The position in this country, in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.609 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
administrative law, is that the
courts/tribunals will only play a secondary
role while the primary judgment as to the
reasonableness will remain with the
executive or the administrative authority.
The secondary judgment of the court is to
be based on Wednesbury principles.
(4) However, whether the Courts in our
country will apply the principle of
proportionality and assume a primary role,
is left open, to be decided in an
appropriate case where such action is
alleged to offend the fundamental
freedoms."
10. In the aforenoted judgments of the Supreme
Court, the observations of Ranjit Thakur (supra) was
taken into account and in that instance there was
interference by the Court with the punishment only after
coming to the conclusion that it was absolutely irrational
and defied the Wednesbury principle.
11. Similar views have been sounded in Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar
Patna High Court L.P.A No.609 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
Arora; (1997) 3 SCC 72 and Rathin Ghosh vs.
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company
Limited and Ors.; (2021) 16 SCC 695.
12. In fact, in almost all the decisions referred to
above, it has been postulated that normally the issue with
respect to quantum of punishment ought to be left to the
disciplinary authority, but if the sentencing appears to be
absolutely irrational and shocking to common sense, it
could be interfered with. At this stage also, a Court
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would have a discretion either to
take a call to lessen the punishment or remand it to the
disciplinary authority to take a decision with respect to
lessening the quantum of punishment.
13. Tested on such principles and the facts of
the present case, we find that the learned Single was right
in observing that for the unauthorised absence of
approximately 13 and 36 days of an employee, even
though he was serving in the police force, the punishment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.609 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
of compulsory retirement was too harsh.
14. The learned Single Judge did not at all
advert to the procedural formalities which was not even
challenged by the respondent.
15. We, therefore, find that the learned Single
Judge has not acted beyond the jurisdiction which he
could have exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and the facts of the present case warrant such a
remand to the disciplinary authority for considering
lessening the quantum of punishment.
16. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss it.
17. The interlocutory application/s, if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/sunil
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 07.02.2025
Transmission Date
