WPSB/337/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 2268 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPSB No.337 of 2021
                                  Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                  Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, learned counsel for the respondent.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no basis for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the punishment inflicted upon the respondent for stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the misconduct of which the respondent was found guilty. He further submits that even if the punishment was found to be disproportionate, it was not for the Tribunal to substitute or reduce the punishment and the matter should have been remanded back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration.

Learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to cite decisions before this Court which deal with the aspect as to when the punishment would be considered disproportionate.

On the second aspect, he places reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another Vs. Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372.

We find that this decision also contains some discussion on the aspect as to when the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would interfere with the punishment on the ground that the same is disproportionate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted in its earlier judgment State of Meghalaya Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

"14. ... It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice."

Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to produce further case laws on the said aspect before the Court.

Learned senior counsel for the respondent also seeks adjournment.

List the matter on 16.11.2022.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.) 25.07.2022 BS/SS