JAI BHAGWAN versus COMMR. OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 13 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 05-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 752 
A 
JAi BHAGWAN 
v. 
COMMR. OF POLICE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.5162-5163 of 2013) 
B 
JULY 5, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
~ .. 
c 
Disciplinary inquiry - On the charges of misconduct -
Punishment of dismissal from service - Appellate authority, 
Administrative Tribunal as well as High Court confirming order 
of disciplinary authority - Held: There is nothing perverse 
about the finding as regards the charge of misconduct - But 
D the punishment of dismissal from service for the kind of 
1-
misconduct alleged, is disproportionate - However, the false 
accusation on the part of the delinquent against his superior 
officer of having used casteist abuses to humiliate him, the 
case does not call for leniency - Hence, in view of totality of 
E the circumstances, order of dismissal substituted to order of 
reduction of rank, with direction that he would have benefit of 
continuity of service, but would not be entitled to arrears of pay 
or other financial benefits for the period· between the date of 
.. 
dismissal and date of reinstatement on the lower post. 
..
F 
Disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the 
appellant on the charge of misconduct. It was alleged that 
when the appellant was posted as an Assistant Wireless 
Operator, was provided with a cabin. When an Inspector 
checked the cabin, he found the cabin locked and when 
G he asked the appellant to open the door of the cabin, 
appellant shouted at him. The Inspector also found the 
appellant not in proper uniform and that appellant also 
snatched the log-book from the Inspector. Disciplinary 
authority passed order of dismissal from service. The 
H 
752 
JAi BHAGWAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 
753 
~ 
appellate authority, Administrative Tribunal as well as 
A 
High Court confirmed the order of the Disciplinary 
Authority. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The charges framed against the appellant 
8 
have been held proved by the disciplinary authority, the 
appellate authority and even by the Tribunal concurrently. 
• >-
The High Court reviewed those findings and found 
nothing perverse about the same. There is in that view c 
no room for interference of this Court on that account. 
~ 
[Para 6] [758-F-G] 
2.1. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment 
to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily 
rest in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An 
D 
-~ 
authority sitting in appeal over any such order of 
punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue 
regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it is 
entitled to examine whether the charges have been 
satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is 
E 
challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court, 
the exercise of discretion by the competent Authority in 
determining and awarding punishment is generally 
.. + 
respected except where the same is found to be so 
outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the 
F 
misconduct that the Court considers it to be arbitrary in 
that it is wholly unreasonable. The superior Courts and 
the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which 
has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of 
. ......, 
judicial review. A punishment that is so excessive or G 
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the 
conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even 
when Courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere 
with the quantum of punishment. [Para 9] [760-A-E] 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611: 1988 
(1) SCR 512; Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development 
Corporation limited (2003) 8 SCC 9; Union of India vs. 
Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549; 
Ex-Naik Sardar Singh vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 213: 
B 1991 (2) SCR 676; Om Kumar vs. Union of India (2001) 2 
sec 386: 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 693- relied on. 
2.2. In the instant case, the punishment of dismissal 
from service for the kind of misconduct proved against 
C the appellant is grossly disproportionate. There is no 
allegation that the appellant had manhandled the police 
Inspector who had gone to check the cabin. Delay of 10 
minutes in opening the cabin door, which according to 
the appellant was open but had got stuck because of 
humidity leading to expansion of the wooden frame, was 
D not a matter that ought to have led to the appellant's 
dismissal after he had served the po

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