UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus LT. COL. KULDEEP YADAV

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 25-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
LT. COL. KULDEEP YADAV
(Civil Appeal No.7603 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law – Censure – Respondent was commissioned in
the Army Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering (EME)
in the year 1997 – In 2009, he came in contact with a foreign
national and remained in contact with her for over two years from
2009 to 2011 – He also stayed with her at the Army premises/Army
guest house and did not disclose her true identity – A staff enquiry
was conducted, consequent to which a show cause notice was
issued to the respondent – The competent authority found
respondent blameworthy of all the lapses and conveyed Severe
Displeasure (Recordable) to the respondent – Respondent filed a
statutory complaint before the competent authority, which was
rejected – Thereafter, respondent filed original application before
the Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal despite noting that the
punishment of censure awarded by the competent authority, cannot
be faulted, held that punishment of ‘Severe Displeasure
(Recordable)’ was not  commensurate with the act and conduct of
the applicant – Further, Tribunal remanded the matter to the
competent authority to award censure other than ‘Severe
Displeasure  (Recordable)’ – On appeal, held: The Tribunal is
competent and empowered to interfere with the punishment awarded
by the appropriate authority in any departmental action, however,
exercise of the power is circumscribed and it can be invoked only
in exceptional and rare cases – The Tribunal, ordinarily, is not
expected to examine the quantum  and the nature of punishment
awarded by the disciplinary authority as a Court of appeal and
substitute its own view and findings by replacing the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority in the backdrop
of the evidence on record – In the instant case, the Tribunal took
an erroneous approach despite having noticed that the respondent
had admitted all the allegations made against him in the show
cause notice – It was not a case of an aberration or a one time
662
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 662
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
indiscretion of the respondent – Respondent continued to remain
in contact with foreign national for over two years – Further, he
furnished wrong information in the guest list of the guest house –
Respondent  admitted that he unauthorisedly kept ‘official’
documents in his laptop including the crucial information regarding
his rank, name and unit location and the laptop was routinely
connected to the internet and made easily accessible to a foreign
national – Tribunal committed manifest error in interfering with the
award of censure of Severe Displeasure (Recordable) – Therefore,
the award of censure of ‘Severe Displeasure (Recordable)’ passed
by the competent authority upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is no more res integra that the Tribunal is
competent and empowered to interfere with the punishment
awarded by the appropriate authority in any departmental action,
on the ground that the same is excessive or disproportionate
to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer.
However, exercise of that power is circumscribed. It can be
invoked only in exceptional and rare cases, when the
punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority shocks the
conscience of the Tribunal or is so unreasonable that no
reasonable person would have taken such an action. The
Tribunal, ordinarily, is not expected to examine the quantum and
nature of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority as a
court of appeal and substitute its own view and findings by
replacing the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent
authority in the backdrop of the evidence on record. [Para 22]
[679-H; 680-A-B]
2. Indeed, it is open to the Tribunal to direct the
disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed by it;
and in exceptional and rare cases, may itself impose appropriate
punishment to shorten the litigation by recording cogent reasons
therefor. The reported decisions pressed into service by the
appellants have consistently taken this view. In the present case,
the Tribunal has adopted the former option, of relegating the
respondent before the competent authority for reconsideration
of the punishment but, at the same time, hedged by an
observation that awarding of censure in the facts of the present
case was inevitable. [Para 23] [680-C-D]
UNION OF 

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