LexDEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KVS & ORS. versus J. HUSSAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 9 S.C.R. 898 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KVS & ORS. v. J. HUSSAIN (Civil Appeal No. 8948 of 2013) OCTOBER 4, 2013 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: Misconduct - Dismissal from service - Appellant, in drunken state, forcibly entering into office of Principal - High Court substituting the order of dismissal by withholding of two increments without cumulative effect - Held: When the charge 0 is proved, it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed - If appellate authority is of the opinion that the case warrants lesser penalty, it can reduce the penalty imposed by Disciplinary Authority - However, such a power is ordinarily not available to court! tribunal - Where it is found that E punishment is disproportionate to the nature of charge, court can only refer matter back to disciplinary authority to take appropriate view by imposing lesser punishment, rather than directing itself the exact nature of penalty -- Judgment of High Court is set aside and that of Tribunal restored, upholding the F punishment of removal of respondent from service. Punishment - Judicial review - Held: Court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts - In exercise G of power of judicial review, court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic - Entering the school premises in working hours in an inebriated condition and thereafter forcibly entering into Principal's room would H 898 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KVS & ORS. v. J. 899 HUSSAIN constitute a serious misconduct - Penalty of removal for such A a misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14. Dismissal of the appellant, an UDC, in a Kendriya Vidyalaya, was upheld by the Central Administrative 8 Tribunal, as his misconduct in forcibly entering into the office of the Principal in drunken state in duty hours was found proved. However, the High Court, in writ petition, substituted the punishment by withholding two increments without cumulative effect. c In the instant appeal filed by the School, the question for consideration before the High Court was: whether the penalty of removal from service inflicted upon the respondent by the appellant-school was "disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct to the D extent that it shocks the conscience of the Court and is to be treated so arbitrary as to term it as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution". Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 When the charge is proved, as happened in the instant case, it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature F and gravity of charge. The disciplinary authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. Several factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature G of duties and responsibilities assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist. The order of the appellate authority while having a re-look H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A of the case would, obviously, examine as to whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is reasonable or not. If the appellate authority is of the opinion that the case warrants lesser penalty, it can reduce the penalty so imposed by the disciplinary 8 authority. Such a power which vests with the appellate authority departmentally is ordinarily not available to the court or a tribunal. The court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts. In exercise of power of C judicial review the court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate, 0 suggestin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.