STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. versus M. MANGAYARKARASI AND ETC.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 26-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave granted

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
v.
M. MANGAYARKARASI AND ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11345-11346 of 2018)
 NOVEMBER 26, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law: Removal from service – Misappropriation of
funds by the staff in the District Treasury Office – Charge sheet
against 11 staff members – State Government issued order of removal
in case of two employees (respondents)– Single judge of High Court
interfered with the punishment on the ground that other employees
against whom disciplinary proceeding was initiated on similar
charges were subjected to comparatively a lenient punishment of
stoppage of increments and rejected the stand of the State
Government that the quantum of loss caused due to production of
bogus bills in the case of two employees was substantially high –
On appeal, Division Bench of High Court observed that in matters
involving disciplinary proceedings, cases of two employees cannot
as such be compared – However, it was of view that since the charges
against all the employees were identical and the employees were in
the same cadre of ministerial service, the view of single judge in
applying parity of treatment cannot be faulted – On appeal, held:
In seeking to apply the principle of parity of treatment, the High
Court manifestly failed to notice that the gravity of misconduct which
was established against the appellants was distinct from and of a
more serious nature than what was found against the other
employees – While the language of the charge may be similar in
other cases that would not detract from the fact that the amount
involved and the extent of the lack of verification in the case of the
respondents was of a much higher order – The Division Bench having
noticed that in a matter of this nature, the principle of parity cannot
be attracted, nonetheless affirmed the view of the Single Judge –
This was evidently erroneous – Moreover, the approach of both the
Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be accepted having
due regard to the parameters of judicial review in disciplinary matters
– Single Judge  substituted the penalty which was imposed by the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 427
427
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
disciplinary authority – The imposition of a penalty in disciplinary
proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer – Unless the
penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges
which are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed to
the employer cannot be interfered with – In this view of the matter,
there was merit in these appeals – Administrative law – Judicial
review.
Disposing of the appeals and remanding the matter to High
Court, the Court.
HELD : The nature and extent of a dereliction of duty and
the consequences of the dereliction are significant matters which
can legitimately be borne in mind by the disciplinary authority.
While noticing that such a submission was in fact made before
the Single Judge, the Division Bench proceeded to apply the
yardstick of parity. Parity could not be applied for the simple
reason that there was a material distinction in the case of the
misconduct alleged against the appellants as compared to the
other employees.   The  approach of both the Single Judge and
the Division Bench cannot be accepted having due regard to the
parameters of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The Single
Judge  substituted the penalty which was imposed by the
disciplinary authority, for a penalty which appeared to the Court
to be just and proper.  The imposition of a penalty in disciplinary
proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer.  Unless the
penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges
which are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed
to the employer cannot be interfered with. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ appeals are
restored to the file of the High Court for disposal afresh upon
hearing the parties. [Paras 13-19][431-B-H; 432-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11345-
11346 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2015 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1275 and 1276 of 2012.
Ms. Purbitaa Mitra,  K. V. Ramkumar,  R. Naveenraj,
K. V. Vijayakumar Advs. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
Rutwik Panda, Ms. Anshu Malik,  Ms. Nikhar Berry, P. R. Kovilan,
Nanda Kishore, Ms. Lakshmi, Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,  V. 

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