Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 970 - SUPREME COURTCentral Administrative tribunal (tribunal) - Appellant (IPS Officer) was on deputation - Punishment of Compulsory Retirement - Misconduct of an Administrative nature or of a serious nature - Respondent No. 1 against the order of the Tribunal raising a very large number of grievances. The Appellant was running from pillar to post as he had been harassed and penalised for no fault of his own and has been awarded a punishment which is uncalled for. Thus, he had moved the Tribunal, High Court of Delhi and this Court several times. Appellant submitted that there has been misreading of evidence by the High Court of Delhi that charge Nos. 4 and 6 have been proved fully. The charges were trivial in nature and could not warrant the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Appellant faced departmental proceedings for six years and had been deprived of being considered for further promotion. He is due to retire in December, 2013. The Appellant remained under suspension for 11 months and was dismissed from service for about 19 months. He had been granted 'Z' class protection initially which was subsequently scaled down to 'Y' category. The Appellant was given the said security/protection even during the period of suspension and dismissal. Even during that period he had been provided with a bullet proof car and PSOs as he had been facing threats from naxalites. Therefore, the punishment so imposed is to be set aside. Charge no. 4 Favoritism and manipulation in the selection of Headmaster, BSF Primary School Kadmatala even though the candidate did not possess essential qualification and was not eligible. Charge no.6 Misuse of official vehicle, arms and ammunition and BSF personnel during the marriage of his son in Feb. 2006 at his native place in Balia, UP. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is proportionate to the delinquency proved - HELD THAT:- In both the cases the misconduct seems to be of an administrative nature rather than a misconduct of a serious nature. It was not the case of the department that the Appellant had taken the escort vehicle with him. There was only one vehicle which was an official vehicle for his use and charge No. 6 stood partly proved. In view thereof, the punishment of compulsory retirement shocks the conscience of the court and by no stretch of imagination can it be held to be proportionate or commensurate to the delinquency committed by and proved against the Appellant. The only punishment which could be held to be commensurate to the delinquency was as proposed by the Government of India to withhold two increments for one year without cumulative effect. It would have been appropriate to remand the case to the disciplinary authority to impose the appropriate punishment. However, considering the chequered history of the case and in view of the fact that the Appellant had remained under suspension for 11 months, suffered the order of dismissal for 19 months and would retire after reaching the age of superannuation in December 2013, the facts of the case warrant that this Court should substitute the punishment of compulsory retirement to the punishment proposed by the Union of India i.e. withholding of two increments for one year without having cumulative effect.
|