TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he seminal facts which are largely undisputed. 4. The Appellant-Bank had issued separate charge-sheets to six employees leveling identical charges. Three Respondents before us in these appeals were the three employees out of those six employees to whom these charge-sheets were issued. All the six employees, including the Respondents herein, filed their replies to the charge-sheets denying the charges. 5. For certain unknown reasons, the Appellant-Bank initially chose to proceed and conduct the enquiry only against the Respondents herein and appointed an enquiry officer. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report, returning the findings that charges leveled against the Respondents stood proved. After giving the opportunity to the Respondents to file their response and objections to the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 15th February 2008 in respect of all the three Respondents, though orders were passed separately in each case. These Respondents filed departmental appeals which were also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide orders dated 28th April, 2008. 6. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of the aforesaid instructions which the Appellant-Bank had given to its counsel, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions by setting aside the order of the punishment passed by the Appellate Authority with the directions that these appeals of the Respondents be reconsidered. However, while giving the directions for reconsideration the High Court also specifically ordered that the Appellate Authority shall take a decision and award minor punishment as had been done in the case of other three employees. Exact nature of this direction given by the High Court in the impugned order reads as under: The Petitioners shall file before the appellate authority the notarized affidavits, tendering unconditional apology in the same terms as has been filed before this Court and the appellate authority shall take a decision and pass appropriate orders accordingly awarding minor punishments, as has been done in the case of other office-bearers of the Bank's Union. This shall be done in the first meeting of the Boards of Directors, which is to take place hereinafter or in any case within next two months, whichever is earlier. It is this specific direction to the Appellate Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employer accepted to choose the unqualified apology given and regrets expressed by Chunnu and Vakil. It cannot be said that the employer had discriminated so far as the Respondent workman is concerned because as noted above he had tried to justify his action for which departmental proceedings were initiated. It is not that Chunnu and Vakil were totally exonerated. On the contrary, a letter of warning dated 11.4.1984 was issued to them. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda the Administrative Tribunal had modified the punishment on the ground that two other persons were let off with minor punishment. This Court held that when all the persons did not stand on the same footing, the same yardstick cannot be applied. Similar is the position in the present case. Therefore, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. 10. Per contra Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Sr. Counsel and Mr. Rajeev Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in these appeals argued that the circumstances of the two sets of cases were almost identical and therefore in the facts of this case, the directions of the High Court were perfectly in order. He pointed out that the other thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed a passive role was inflicted with a more serious punishment of dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained. We are of the view the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgments also would apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the Appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the Appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re-instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Learned Counsel for the Respondents made a fervent plea that the Respondents herein were also entitled to the same treatment. 11. The question that falls for determination is as to whether the High Court is justified in giving suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. 15 16 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The High Court in this case has not only interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in a routine manner but overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the appellate authority to impose any other punishment short of removal. By fettering the discretion of the appellate authority to impose appropriate punishment for serious misconducts committed by the Respondent, the High Court totally misdirected itself while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. Judged in this background the conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be regarded as proper at all. The High Court has interfered with the punishment imposed by the competent authority in a casual manner and, therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted. 13. As is clear from the above that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... choosing to take a chance to contest the charges such employees thereafter cannot fall back and say that the penalty in their cases cannot be more than the penalty which is imposed upon those employees who accepted the charges at the outset by tendering unconditional apology. 16. This, according to us, would be the harmonious reading of Obettee (P) Ltd. and Rajendra Yadav cases. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows: (a) When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities; (b) The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority; (c) Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court; (d) Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
