UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DWARKA PRASAD TIWARI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 12-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
DWARKA PRASAD TlWARl 
OCTOBER 12, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Misconduct-Punishment-Judicial Review-Scope-CRPF personnel 
dismissed for misconduct and negligence/remissness in discharge of duty- C 
High Court set aside punishment of dismissal holding it to be too harsh and 
shockingly disproportionate-On appeal, held, order of High Court reflects 
non-application of mind since it did not indicate any reason to justify its 
conclusion-Matter remitted to High Court to re-consider the question of 
quantum of punishment-Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule D 
27. 
Respondent was posted as a constable with Central Reserve Police Force 
(CRPF). While functioning as sentry on a platoon post, he committed an act 
of misconduct and negligence/remissness in that he fired one round from 
his service weapon without orders and without any sufficient reason. E 
Departmental Inquiry in terms of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 was 
ordered, consequent to which Respondent was dismissed. He filed writ petition 
whereupon the High Court set aside the punishment of dismissal holding it 
to be too harsh and shockingly disproportionate. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Interference with quantum of punishment cannot be a routine 
matter. The Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision 
unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking 
F 
to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or G 
moral standards. The Court would not go into the correctness of the choice 
made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute 
its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited 
to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 
1221-E; 227-G, H; 228-AI 
217 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by the 
Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of 
the Courtffribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten 
litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate 
punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal 
B course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be 
appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to 
reconsider the penalty imposed.1228-B, Cl 
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., (I995J 6 SCC 749; Om 
Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India, (2001( 2 SCC 386; Union of India and 
C Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, (1997( 7 SCC 463; Union of India and Anr. v. KG. 
D 
Soni, (2006) 6 Supreme 389 and Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank 
. and Ors. v. Munna Lal Jain, 12005) to SCC 84, relied on • 
. Wednesbury case, 1948 (I). KB 223 and Council for Civil Services Union 
v. Minister of Civil Service, (1983) I AC 768, referred to." 
2. The High Court has not indiCated any reason for coming to the 
conclusion that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. It only stated 
t~at the defence of respondent was not duly consid.ered. If that was really so, 
the High Court would have interfered on that ground but that has not been 
done. The High Court's order therefore reflects non-application_ of miml. The 
E impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 
High Court to re-hear the writ petition restricted to the qu.Stion of quantum 
ofpunishmenL (228-EJ 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4454 of2006. 
. 
- . 
' 
F 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.6.2005 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Petition No: 2150 of 1992. · 
WITI-1 
Civil Appeal No. 4455 of2006 
G 
Vikas Singh, Ashok K. Srivastava; Sushma Suri and Prakash Srivastava 
for the Appellants. . 
- · 
Mohan Singh and Prakash Shrivastava_ for the Respondent. 
H 
.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
--
U.0.1. v. DWARKAPRASADTIWARl[PASAYAT,J.) 
, ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted in bvth the Special Leave Petitions. A 
' 
These two appeals are directed against a common judgment of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur allowing the writ petition filed by the 
respondent-Dwarka Prasad' who is the appellant in the appeal relating to 
SLP(C) No. 15725 of2006. The writ petition was partially allowed by a learned 
Single Judge of the High Court h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.