STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ORS. versus MECKEN SINGH N.MARAK

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 09-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 89 
STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ORS. 
v. 
MECKEN SINGH N.MARAK 
(Civil Appeal No. 3471 Of 2008) 
MAY 9, 2008 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J.M. PANCHAL,JJ.] 
Service Law ... Punishment - Interference with - Scope of 
A 
B 
- Misconduct by police officer .... Instructions flouted and loss 
caused to exchequer as also loss of service revolver with am- c 
munition - Removal from service by Competent Authority -
Upheld by Single Judge of High Court - However, Division 
Bench set aside order of removal and remitted the matter to 
appellate authority, to impose punishment short of removal -
Held: Not justified - Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with 0 
quantum of punishment is limited - Punishment by Authorities 
unless shocking to conscience of court, cannot be subject to 
;udicial review - High Court did not gi~e reasons as to why pun-
ishment was disproportionate - It not only interfered with the 
punishment in a casual manner but overstepped its jurisdic-
E 
tion - Thus, order as also direction by High Court set aside -
Order of removal from service by competent authority upheld. 
Respondent-Sub Inspector of Police was instructed 
by his Commandant to go to Shillong to disburse the pay 
in a vehicle belonging to the department. Another police F 
officer was also deputed for safe carriage of pay to be 
disbursed. Respondent was issued 0.38 bore revolver 
with 12 rounds of ammunition. Respondent disobeyed the 
instructions and conducted himself in such a manner that 
he caused loss of part of pay to be deposited with the G 
exchequer and loss of service revolver with ammunition. 
Case was registered against the respondent. Departmen-
tal Enquiry was conducted. The Competent Authority re-
moved the respondent from service. Appellate Authority 
upheld the order. The Single Judge of High Court upheld H 
89 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
A the order. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court 
set aside the order of removal of the respondent from ser-
vice and remitted the matter to the appellate authority-In-
spector General of Police to consider the question of im-
position of appropriate punishment, short of removal from 
B service, commensurate with the gravity of the proven mis-
conduct of the respondent. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
• 
HELD: 1. The competent authority as well as the first 
c appellate authority concluded that grave misconduct com-
mitted by the respondent is satisfactorily proved. The said 
finding was upheld by the Single Judge of the High Court. 
On re-appreciation of evidence adduced, during the course 
of the departmental inquiry initiated against the respondent, 
D the Division Bench of High Court also recorded a finding of 
fact that the respondent had committed serious misconduct. 
The said finding is a finding of fact which is not liable to be 
interfered with in the instant appeal. (Para 8) [96-C,D] 
1.2. A court or a tribunal while dealing with the quan-
E tum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is 
felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the 
proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, 
the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to 
exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of High Court, to in-
f terfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and 
~ 
cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High 
Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to 
consider the question in regard to the quantum of pun-
ishment, but it has a limited role to play. The High Courts, 
G in exercise of powers under Article 226 does not interfere 
with the quantum of punishment unless there exist suffi-
cient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the 
disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority unless 
.. 
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be sub-
H jected to judicial review; (Para 9) [97-8,C,D,E] 
STATE OF .MEGHALAYA & ORS. v. 
91 
MECKEN SINGH N.MARAK 
1.3 In the impugned order of the High Court no rea-
A 
sons whatsoever were indicated as to why the punish-
ment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give 
reasons amounts to denial of justice. The. mere statement 
that it is disproportionate would not suffice. While consid-
ering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed s 
on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental inquiry, 
the court should also take into consid~ration,, the mental 
set up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed 
by 

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