STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. versus HAZARILAL

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 12-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 787 
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. 
A 
II. 
HAZARILAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 6498 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 
.B 
[S.B. SINHA AND. HARJIT SINGH BEDI; JJ.] 
Service Law -
Termination of service - In view of 
conviction uls 323 rlw 34 /PC by a Criminal Court - Tribunal 
and High Court directing his reinstatement' h'ofding that c 
punishment was excessive - On appeal, held: Disciplinary 
authority while imposing punishment under its statutory 
discretionary powers, should take into account attending facts 
and circumstances of the c9se - In the facts of the case, order 
of termination is unreasonable and also disproportionate -
Service rules relied on by the State is not applicable to the 
instant case - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, 
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - r.19. 
D. 
Respondent was a peon. He was convicted u/s 323 
r/w s. 34 IPC and was punished with fine of Rs.500/-. In 
E 
view of that, disciplinary action was taken against him and 
consequently his services were terminated. His 
application seeking his reinstatement was allowed by the 
State Administrative Tribunal holding that the punishment 
of .termination of service is excessive. Writ petition filed 
F 
against th~ order of the Tribunal was dismissed. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The attitude of the appellant is G 
unreasonable. Respondent had not committed any 
misconduct within the meaning of the provisions of the 
Service Rules. He was involved in a matter for causing 
simple injury to another person. He was not even sent to 
787 
H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 2 S.C.R. 
A prison. Only a sum of Rs.500/- was imposed upon him as 
r 
fine. [Para 5] [790-G; 791-A] 
1.2 An authority which is conferred with a statutory 
discretionary power is bound to take into consideration 
all the attending facts and circumstances of the case 
B before imposing an order of punishment. While exercising 
such power, the disciplinary authority must act reasonably 
and fairly. Respondent occupies the lowest rank of the 
cadre. He was merely a contingency peon. Continuation 
of his service in the department would not bring a bad 
C name to the State. He was not convicted for any act 
involving moral turpitude. He was not punished for any 
heinous offence. [Para 8] [792-B, C] 
Shankar Das vs. Union of India 1985 (2) SCC 358 -
0 relied on. 
2. The legal parameters of judicial review has 
undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of 
unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of 
proportionality. Applying the doctrine of proportionality 
E principle also, no interference with the impugned 
judgment is called for. [Paras 12 and 15] [793-E; 794-G] 
Indian Airlines Ltd. vs. Prabha D. Kuinari 2006 (1~) SCC 
67; State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava 2006 (3) 
SCC 276; M.P. Gangadhran and Anr. vs. State of Kera/a and 
F Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2360; Coimbatore District Central 
Cooperative Bank vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative 
Bank Employees Association and Anr. 2007 (4) SCC 669; 
Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors. 1987 (4) SCC 611 -
relied on. 
G 
H 
Sea/ (FC) (Appellant) vs. Chief Constable of South Wales 
Police (respondent) 2007 (4) All ER 177; Huang (FC) 
(Respondent) vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department 
(Appellant) and Kashmiri (FC) (Appellant) Vs. Secretary of 
State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Conjoined 
-1 
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHER'S. v. HAZARILAL 
789 
[S.8. SINHA, J.] 
"I 
Appeals) 2007 (4) All ER 15; Tweed (Appellant) vs. Parades A 
Commission for Northern Ireland (Respondents) (Northern 
Ireland) 2007 (2) All ER 273; Belfast City Council (Appellants)· 
vs. Miss Behvain Limited (Respnfients) (Northern Ireland) 
2007 (3) All ER 1007; R (On the application of Countryside 
Alliance and Ors) vs. Her Majesty's Attorney General and Anr. 
B 
2007 (3) WLR 922- referred to. 
i 
.. 
-\ 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6498 
of 2005. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2004 of c 
the High Court of Judicature for Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur 
Bench at Gwalior in W.P. No. 375/2003. 
· 
Siddhartha Dave, Vibha Datta Makhija and Nemtiben Ao 
for the Appellants. 
Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai and K. Rajeev for the D 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of thl? Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Respondent was a Peon appointed in 
E 
a Middle School. He is said to have assaulted one Ram Singh · 
on 5th October, 1989. He was prosecuted for commi~sion o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.