UNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus S.S. AHLUWALIA

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 24-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 
A 
v. 
S.S. AHLUWALIA 
AUGUST 24, 2007 
(G.P. MA THUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN,JJ.) 
B 
Service law : 
Reinstatement with consequential benefits-Order, validity of-Held: 
Order for reinstatement could be passed when employee is dismissed or C 
removed from service after initiation of disciplinary proceedings and said 
dismissal or removal is found to be illegal-On facts employee himself sought 
voluntary retirement and had actually been relieved-Thereafter, was no 
longer in service and had not done any work-Also no delay in accepting 
his request for voluntary retirement-Disciplinary proceedings concluded D 
against employee with imposing small punishment-Thus, case for 
reinstatement with consequential benefits not made out-Central Reserve 
Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 43(d)(i). 
Penalty-Imposition of, in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings-
lnterference with-Held: ls limited-Court can interfere only when the penalty E 
ifl'!posed is shockingly dispropodionate to the charges proved-In such case 
court is to remit the matter to Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration-
On facts, charges proved against employee and penalty of I 0% deduction 
from pension for one year imposed-Penalty imposed being small, no 
interference called for-Judicial Review. 
· 
F 
Respondent, employed with CRPF filed application seeking voluntary 
retirement with effect from 1.7.1993. Application was rejected. He then made 
representations for voluntary retirement which was accepted on 23.2.1994 
subject to the condition that the proceedings for imposing major penalty 
initiated against him would continue. Respondent was relieved from services G 
on 2.3.1994. However, his retiral benefits were not released and was informed 
by order dated 12.5.1995 that it would be released on completion of 
-1' 
departmental inquiry. Inquiry was conducted and charges were proved, except 
for one. Union Public Service Commission imposed penalty of 10% deduction 
from his basic pension for one year. Competant Authority upheld the same. 
Jn 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A Aggreived respondent filed writ petition for quashing the order dated 
12.5.1995, for release of retiral benefit and for directions to treat the 
>-
respondent as deemed to have yoluntarily retired with effect from 1.7.1993. 
Thereafter, respondent filed amendment application seeking quashing of the 
order retiring him and to reinstate him in service with all consequential 
B 
benefits. Another writ petition was filed for quashing the order imposing the 
penalty. The Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petitions. The order 
imposing penalty of 10% deduction in pension for one year was set aside and 
respondent was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The 
Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The order for reinstatement can be passed where as a result 
of disciplinary proceedings initiated by an employer an employee is dismissed 
or removed from service and the said dismissal or removal is found to be 
illegal by a court of law. In the instant case, respondent had himself sought 
D voluntary retirement and had actually been relieved on 2.3.1994. Thereafter 
he was no longer in service and had not done any work. The Single Judge of 
High Court as also Division Bench of the High Court did not advert to this 
aspect of the matter. The Division Bench merely observed that had the 
appellants disposed of the matter of voluntary retirement of the respondent in 
E 
1993 and had he been permitted to retire in that year itself he stood fair chance 
of getting a re-employment which is wholly unsustainable in law. In the 
application moved by the respondent on 15.3.1993 he had sought voluntary 
retirement from 1.7.1993. This request was finally accepted on 23.2.1994 
and he was relieved on. 2.3.1994. As such there was not much delay in 
accepting the prayer of the respondent for voluntary retirement. The 
F disciplinary proceedings had finally concluded against the respondent with 
. imposition of small punishment In these circumstances, there was absolutely 
no ground for directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with 
continuity in service and all consequential benefits. (Para 6) 
(381-F-H; 382-A-B] 
G 
1.2. The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty 
as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very lim

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