2013 (5) TMI 970 - SC - Indian Laws

Central 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and proportionality of the punishment of compulsory retirement.
2. Alleged willful violation of the Supreme Court's order by the Respondents.
3. Misreading of evidence by the High Court regarding charges against the Appellant.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions and the scope of interference by courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Proportionality of the Punishment of Compulsory Retirement:
The Appellant, an IPS officer, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in a charge sheet with eight charges. The Inquiry Officer found Charge No. 3 fully proved and Charges Nos. 4 and 6 partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's finding on Charge No. 4 and held it fully proved, leading to the Appellant's dismissal from service. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal, but the High Court later directed a fresh order on Charges Nos. 4 and 6, leading to the Appellant's compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court found the punishment of compulsory retirement disproportionate to the misconduct proved, which was administrative in nature rather than serious. The Court substituted the punishment with the withholding of two increments for one year without cumulative effect, as proposed by the Union of India.

2. Alleged Willful Violation of the Supreme Court's Order by the Respondents:
The Appellant argued that the Respondents violated the Supreme Court's order dated 5.10.2012, which stated that any punishment should not be given effect to without being produced before the Court. The Respondents imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement and communicated it to the Appellant. The Supreme Court, considering the chequered history of the case and the Appellant's approaching retirement, decided not to proceed with the contempt petitions and disposed of them accordingly.

3. Misreading of Evidence by the High Court Regarding Charges Against the Appellant:
The High Court found Charges Nos. 4 and 6 fully proved, which the Appellant contested as a misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court made factual mistakes, such as incorrectly stating that the Appellant appointed Shri S.S. Majumdar as a regular teacher with retrospective effect, and misinterpreting the usage of vehicles. The Tribunal had previously found no favouritism or manipulation in the selection process for the Head Master and noted that the Appellant's actions did not amount to serious misconduct.

4. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions and the Scope of Interference by Courts:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles of judicial review, emphasizing that courts should not re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. Judicial review is limited to examining the process of decision-making, not the decision itself. The Court can interfere if the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct, shocks the conscience, or is arbitrary. The Supreme Court found the punishment of compulsory retirement to be shockingly disproportionate and substituted it with a lesser penalty.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court granted the appeals, substituting the punishment of compulsory retirement with the withholding of two increments for one year without cumulative effect. The contempt petitions were disposed of, and the Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in administrative matters, focusing on the process rather than the merits of the decision.