UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus P. BALASUBRAHMANAYAM

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 04-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 160
160
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
v.
P. BALASUBRAHMANAYAM
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3592-3593 of 2020)
MARCH 04, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Compulsory retirement – Punishment – Correctness of –
Disciplinary Inquiry on the charges of bribery and procedural lapses
– The delinquent challenged the validity of memo of charges on the
ground that it was issued without prior approval from vigilance as
mandated by Circular dated 18.01.2005 – In the meanwhile
departmental proceedings were concluded whereby the delinquent
was discharged of all the charges of bribery and was found guilty
of all the charges of procedural lapses – He was inflicted with
punishment of compulsory retirement – Delinquent challenged the
order of punishment taking ground of non-compliance with the
Circular dated 18.01.2005 – Tribunal held that non-compliance
with the circular did not prejudice the delinquent as the charges of
bribery were not proved – Tribunal directed to impose appropriate
minor penalty as punishment of compulsory retirement was unduly
harsh and disproportionate – High Court directed to reinstate the
delinquent into service with all consequential benefits holding that
entire proceedings were vitiated on account of non-compliance with
the Circular dated 18.01.2005 r/w. r. 12 of Postal Manual Volume
III – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Non-compliance with the
Circular dated 18.01.2005 did not cause any prejudice to delinquent,
once it was found that the case did not have vigilance angle – The
findings of disciplinary authority as regards procedural lapses
cannot be disturbed – However, the punishment of compulsory
retirement was disproportionate in view of the nature of charges
found against the delinquent – The direction of the Tribunal to impose
minor penalty is, therefore, sustained.
Allowing the appeals, the court
HELD: 1. The reliance on the Circular does not help the
case of the respondent inter alia for the reason that once it is
found that the case does not have a vigilance angle, albeit after
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
161
conclusion of inquiry, no prejudice can be said to have caused to
the respondent. The fairness of the departmental proceedings is
obvious on the fact that all charges relating to bribery had been
held in favour of the respondent and those charges have been
rejected. The only charges found proved are of procedural
irregularities, over which there are concurrent findings of the
relevant authorities based on certain admissions made by the
respondent himself. The proceedings have also got prolonged
because at every stage the respondent sought to challenge them
in judicial forums, and that too not very successfully. [Para 15]
[170-C-E]
2. The findings of the disciplinary authority insofar as the
procedural lapses are concerned cannot be disturbed. It really
shows that there was negligence on the part of the respondent in
performing his duties. That being so, it was not appropriate for
the High Court to have set aside the result of the proceedings
against the respondent by giving him a clean chit on the issue as
a consequence of the Circular not being followed. The course
adopted by the Tribunal was the appropriate course of action,
i.e., the procedural lapses having been found and the bribery
allegation having been rejected, the appropriate course would
have been to examine only the issue of disproportionality of
punishment. [Paras 16 and 18][170-E-F; 171-A-B]
3. It is correct that judicial forums do not sit as an appellate
authority to substitute their mind with the mind of the disciplinary
authority insofar as the finding is concerned. However, the
punishment of compulsory retirement was completely
disproportionate and harsh, keeping in mind the finding arrived
at by the disciplinary authority. It, thus, seems to appear that the
charges originally levelled may have persuaded the concerned
authority to impose punishment; losing site of the fact that the
allegations qua bribery had not been found against the respondent.
The nature of charges found against the respondent can hardly
be one to call for a major penalty, keeping in mind that there was
no bribery charge. The direction of the Tribunal to impose
appropriate minor penalty is liable to be sustained. [Paras 19 and
20][171-B-D; 171-F-G]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. P. BALASUBRAHMANAYAM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
S.R. Tewari v. Union of India

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