THE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DADAR & NAGAR HAVELI versus GULABHIA M. LAD

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 28-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 5 S.C.R. 309 
THE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DADAR & 
NAGAR HAVEL! 
v. 
GULABHIA M. LAD 
(Criminal Appeal No. 3933 of 2010) 
APRIL 28, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment -
Imposition of - Different punishment to delinquents in a joint C 
inquiry -
Propriety of - Held: Different punishment is 
permissible if the responsibilities and duties of co-delinquents 
differ or where distinguishing features exist - Similarity of 
charges is not determinative factor for imposition of 
punishment - On facts, instant case does not make out a D 
case of discrimination in inflicting punishment - Punishment 
of removal imposed on the appellant-delinquent, 
commensurates with the misconduct proved against him, 
Judicial Review - Scope of - In disciplinary matters -
E 
Held: In ex~rcise of power of judicial review, court cannot 
interfer~ with discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority! 
appe/l~te authority, with regard to imposition of punishment 
unless such discretion suffers from illegality, or material 
procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of 
the court. 
F 
Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against respondent 
(Land Reforms Officers) along with two of his subordinate 
,staff. After the joint enquiry, Inquiring Authority submitted 
its report to Disciplinary Authority. All the delinquents G 
were imposed with major penalty of removal from 
service. In departmental appeal, the punishment of 
removal of the respondent-delinquent was upheld, while 
the punishment of the two co-delinquents were modified 
~09 
H 
I 
31 O 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
viz. one was punished with compulsory retirement while 
the other was punished with reduction to lower stage of 
pay by five stages with cumulative effect. 
Respondent challenged the order before Centr~I 
B 
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the awaefd 
of. different punishment to the respondent was 
discriminatory. Challenge to the order of the Tribunal was 
set aside by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While exercising power of judicial review, 
the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the 
discretion exercised11by the Disciplinary Authority, and/or 
on appeal the Appell'Me Autbority with regard to the 
D imposition of punishment unless such discretfun suffers 
from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that 
would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The 
exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the 
Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority is dependent 
E 
on host of factors such as gravity -0f misconduct, past 
conauct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, 
responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, 
previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be 
maintained in the department or establishment he works. 
F 
Ordinarily the court or a tribunal would not substitute its 
opinion on reappraisal of facts. [Para 13) [318-G-H; 319-
A-B] 
B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 
749; Director General, RPF and Ors. v. Ch. Sai Babu (2003) 
G 4 ·sec 331; Chairman and Managing Director, United 
Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 
364; Union of.India and Anr. v. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 
257; State of Meghalaya and Ors. v. Mecken Singh N. Marak 
(2008) 7 sec 580, referred to. 
H 
ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DADAR & 
311 
NAGAR HAVELI v. GULABHIA M. LAD 
1.2. In a matter of imposition of punishment where A 
joint disciplinary enquiry is held against more than one 
delinquent, the same or similarity of charges is not 
decisive but many factors as noticed above may be vital 
in decision making. A single distinguishing feature in the 
nature of duties or degree of responsibility may make 
B 
difference insofar as award of punishment is concerned. 
To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and overlapping 
adducing of evidence, a joint enquiry may be conducted 
against all the delinquent officers but imposition of 
different punishment on proved charges may not be c 
impermissible if the responsibilities and duties of the co-
delinquents differ or where distinguishing features exist. 
In such a case, there would not be any question of 
selective or invidious discrimination. [Para 13) [319-C-E) 
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v_ Jitendra Pd. 
D 
Singh and Anr. (2001) 10 sec 530; State

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