LexISHWAR CHANDRA JAYASWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 59 ISHWAR CHANDRA JAYASWAL V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 48-49 of 2014) JANUARY 3, 2014. [T. S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B Departmental inquiry - Charges proved - Punishment c - Doctrine of proportionality - Railway employee - Removal from service on charges of demanding and accepting meager amounts - Held: Removal of employee from service for the charges levelled against him shocks the judicial conscience of the Court - Deprivation of retiral benefits in addition to loss 0 of service is entirely incommensurate with the charge of appellant having taken very small sums of money for issuance of Fit Certificate to other Railway employees - Appellant shall be deemed to have been compulsorily retired under Part-I/I Penalty 6(vii) of 1968 Rules and shall be entitled to retiral or other benefits - Railway Servants E (Disciplin~ and Appeal) Rules: 1968 - Part-Ill - Penalty 6(vii). The appellant, an employee of Railways was removed from service as the charges of demanding and F accepting Rs. 26/-, Rs. 34/- and Rs. 18/- from three employees, respectively, were found proved in the 'departmental inquiry. His writ petition and review petition were dismissed. In the instant· appeals, the only question for G consideration before the Court was: "whether the punishment of removal of service of the petitioner on the alleged demand of meagre amounts of Rs.18-45 is contrary to the doctrine of proportionality" 59 H 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 1 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: The appellant is 75 years of age. He has served the respondents for a period of twenty three years and removal from service for the two charges levelled 8 against him shocks the judicial conscience of this Court. It has not been established that the appellant had, as a matter of habit or on a wide scale, made illegal demands from Railway servants desirous of obtaining a Fit Certificate. However, since two of the three charges have been proved, this Court is of the considered opinion that C the imposition of compulsory retirement i.e. Penalty 6(vii) of Part Ill of The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 would have better and more appropriately met the ends of justice. Deprivation of retiral benefits in addition to loss of service is entirely incommensurate 0 with the charge of the appellant having taken very small sums of money for the issuance of Fit Certificate to other Railway employees. The impugned order dated 11.10.2010 is set aside. The appellant shall be deemed to have compulsorily retired under Part-Ill Penalty 6(vii) of E the 1968 Rules with effect from 22.1.1991 and shall be entitled to retiral or other benefits as on the said date. [Para 6-7) [62-F, G-H; 63-A-E] Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia 2007 (9) SCR 377 = F (2007) 7 sec 257 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2007 (9) SCR 377 relied on para 5 G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civi Appeal No. 48- 49 of 2014. H From the Judgment & Order dated 28.03.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 325013 of 2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. ISHWAR CHANDRA JAYASWAL v. UNION OF INDIA 61 38190 of 2004 and order 11.10.2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition A No. 38190 of 2004. Shashank Shekhar, Devashish Bharuka, Jasneet for the Appellant. S.P. Singh, Sukhbir Kaur Bajwa, Kiran Kapoor Shreekant B N. Terdal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1._Leave granted. These Appeals c assail the Judgment dated 11.10.201 O of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38190 of 2004 as well as the subsequent Order dated 28.3.2012 by which a Review Application in respect of the former was dismissed. 2. The Division Bench was confronted with the dismissal from service of the Appellant Dr. lshwar Chandra Jayaswal against whom three Articles of Charge had been framed. Article-I was that he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.26/ D - from Shri Pyare Ram, Khalasi for issuing in his favour a Fit E Certificate. Article-II, in similar vein was that the Appellant demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.34/- from Shri Nandlal, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing him a Fit Certificate. Article- 111 was that the Appellant had demanded and accepted Rs.18/ - from Shri Balroop, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing of Fit F Cer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.