CHARANJIT LAMBA versus COMMANDING OFFICER, SOUTHERN COMMAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 06-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 820 
CHARANJIT LAMBA 
v. 
COMMANDING OFFICER, SOUTHERN COMMAND AND 
ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2002) 
JULY 06, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND T.So THAKUR, JJ.) 
Service Law - Dismissal - On ground of misconduct -
C Appellant, a Major in the Indian Army - Dismissed on the 
ground of committing the misconduct of a) making false claim 
towards payment of transport charges of his household 
luggage and car and b) of violating the rule requiring him to 
/ 
clear his electricity dues upon his transfer from the place of 
/'D his posting - Dismissal challenged by appellant as being 
disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by him 
- Held: The challenge is not tenable - As an officer of 
disciplined force like the Army, appellant was expected to 
maintain the highest standard of honesty and conduct, and 
E forebear from doing anything that could be termed as 
unbecoming of anyone holding that rank and office - Making 
a false claim for payment of transport charges of household 
luggage and car was a serious matter bordering on moral 
turpitude - Breach of the rule requiring him to clear his 
F electricity dues upon his transfer from the place of his posting 
was also not credit worthy for an officer- Any act on the part 
of an officer holding a commission in the Indian Army which 
is subversive of army discipline or high traditions of the Army 
renders such person unfit to stay in the service of the nation's 
Army especially when the misconduct has compromised the 
G values of patriotism, honesty and selflessness which values 
are too precious to be scarified on the altar of petty monetary 
gains, obtained by dubious means - Army Act - ss. 45 and 
52(f). 
H 
820 
CHARANJIT LAMBA v. COMMANDING OFFICER, 
821 
SOUTHERN COMMAND AND ORS. 
Administrative Law - Administrative action - Judicial A 
review by Writ Court - Scope - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 226 and 14 -Doctrines - Doctrine of proportionality. 
Appellant was a Major in the Indian Army. He was 
charged with the misconduct of a) making false claim 
B 
towards p1;1yment of transport charges of his household 
luggage and car and b) of violating the rule requiring him 
to clear his electricity dues upon his transfer from the 
place of his posting. The alleged misconduct was found 
proved, whereupon the appellant was dismissed from C 
service. Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed 
by the High Court. 
In this Court, the appellant contended that the order 
of his dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the 
offence committed by him. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The courts in India have recognized the 
doctrine of proportionality as one of the ground for 
judicial review. The doctrine of proportionality is now a 
E 
well recognized ground on which a Writ Court can 
interfere with the order of punishment imposed upon an 
employee if the same is so outrageously disproportionate 
to the nature of misconduct that it shocks conscience of 
the Court. [Paras 9 and 15] (830-G-H; 828-F] 
F 
1.2. That the punishment imposed upon a delinquent 
should commensurate to the nature and generally of the 
misconduct is a requirement of fairness, objectivity, and 
non-discriminatory treatment. The same is recognized as 
G 
being a part of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Para 15] 
[830-G] 
1.3. The quantum of punishment in disciplinary 
matters is something that rests primarily with the 
disciplinary authority. The jurisdiction of a Writ Court or 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 
A the Administrative Tribunal for that matter is limited to 
finding out whether the punishment is so outrageously 
disproportionate as to be suggestive of lack of good 
faith. What is clear is that while judicially reviewing an 
ordet of punishment Imposed upon a delinquent 
B employee the Writ Court would not assume the role of an 
appellate authority. It would not Impose a lesser 
punishment merely because it considers the same to be 
mc>re reasonable than what the disciplinary authority has 
imposed. It is only in cases where the punishment is so 
c disproportionate to the gravity of charge that no 
reasonable person placed in the position of the 
disciplinary authority could have imposed such a 
punishment that a Writ Court may step in to interfere with 
the same. [Para 15) [830-H; 831-A-C] 
D 
Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees 
Assn. (2007) 4 SCC 669 and M.P. Gangadharan & Anr. v. 
State o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.