PRITAM SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 22-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
PRIT AM SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966: Rules 31 (i), (ii) & (iii). 
Retirement-Compulsory retirement-Punishment of-Judicial review-
Discretionary power of disciplinary authority-Employee supplied absentee 
statement to a coworker in good faith and bona fide-Such a statement 
neither confidential nor privileged information-This act of the employee was 
viewed as serious misconduct and leakage of official information-Therefore, 
the said employee was compulsorily retired from service-High Court and 
Tribunal affirmed the said punishment on the ground that the power of 
judicial review did not permit interference with the quantum of punishment-
Correctness of-Held: This is a glaring example of abuse of discretionary 
power of the disciplinary authority-This is a fit case where the High Court 
and the Tribunal should have held that the punishment imposed was vitiated 
on account of the disproportionality-Hence, punishment of compulsory 
retirement set aside. 
Retirement-Compulsory retirement-Punishment of-Judicial review--
Employee was compulsorily retired from service-Action was not initiated in 
F 
public interest-It was also not a case of doubtful integrity-Held: Under 
these circumstances, order of compulsory retirement set aside. 
G 
The appellant was working as a Head Clerk in the Railways. During 
his service of 31 years the appellant's work and conduct had been highly 
commended. The appellant had given an "absentee" statement to one of 
his coworkers. This "absentee" statement was used by the said coworker 
in his petition filed against the Railways challenging the disciplinary 
action initiated against him. This act on the part of the appellant was 
viewed as a misconduct and leakage of official information. An enquiry 
was held against the appellant pursuant to which the appellant was held 
H 
guilty of leaking official documents. On the basis of the enquiry report 
608 
PRITAM SINGH v. U.O.l. 
609 
and the statement of the appellant, who admitted his guilt, respondent 
A 
No. 3 passed an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant as he 
had violated Rules 31 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railways Services (Conduct) 
Rules, 1966. 
The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court affirmed 
the said punishment on the ground that the power of judicial review did 
not permit interference with the quantum of punishment unless the 
punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate. Hence the appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court: 
Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon 
the appellant was vitiated as being highly disproportionate to the alleged 
misconduct of supplying absentee statement to one of the employees? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is true that the appellant has supplied a document 
containing information regarding the absentee details of a coworker 
which is neither confidential nor privileged information nor the appellant 
was under any official communication prohibiting him to supply the 
same. It was a right of the e·mployee concerned to obtain the information 
B 
c 
D 
from the office. [614-G) 
E 
1.2. The appellant himself has admitted that he had issued the 
absentee details to a coworker in good faith and bona fide. Just because 
an employee is facing litigation, he does not lose his right to get the 
information to which he has a right, so long as the same is not barred. 
Moreover, furnishing of such information has not done or caused 
any damage to the office except causing some inconvenient 
situation to the Railways in contesting the case of an employee and the 
Railway Administration was confronted with the said absentee statement, 
which prompted the Railways to initiate action against the appellant. 
[615-B-C) 
F 
G 
2. The instant case is a glaring example of abuse of discretionary 
power of the Disciplinary Authority as the punishment of compulsory 
retirement imposed on the appellant, who has put in 31 years of long 
service, only because he has supplied the absentee details to one of the 
employees, which was neither confidential nor a privileged document. In H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
any event, the appellant bona fide believed that he was right in furnishing 
the details, which the employee had the right to ask for. This is a fit case 
where the High Cou

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