Sham Lal v. The Fazilka Coop Sugar Mills
!"#"
$
!%# &'
# ("(&) * +,+ , -# !.(/0!
&&1#2!%(3# 456!2 (//"
7%8+9 !.(/0!
+++#%(%(&)#2 :#2"5"
4-!;
7!/ !)8 !)&%-#2
++#"1&)8#)%"
4-!;
7!/
+++#%(%(&)#2 :#2"5"
-# !.(/0!
&&1#2!%(3# 456!2 (//"
7%8+9 !.(/0!
++#"1&)8#)%"
* < 7 + 4 4 4 4
!
#$
%
#$
!
& & &
= , () , , () ' ())
')'
* +'
, ,'% ,)
%
-) ,'% , ''
+)'
* +' '
#
,(.
''
., /
'')
/, 3
) 5
, 6
'
,% ,''
( ) (, )
,'
,,'
/, 3
'') ( ''
) )
,)
,% ,''
( )
)
,'
,,' '')
+ ,'
),
'
( ,% ( ) )
=
#
('
' ,'
) ,) ('
'%
' ( :9,% 5 ')'
%
%
,'
:9,% 5 9,'
, $ ;, ),
' ,'
:9,% 5
)) ')'
%
% :9,% 5 < ='%
:9,% 5
')'
%
% ,' ,' '
) ,'
' ' ( , '
' )
., :9,% 5 (
,
' :9,% 5
( ,% :9,% 5
5 , ) '%
:9,% 5 %
% ''
''%
.,
,
='% , ,' ) ,'
, , '
%
;,
9,
% ,' ,' )'%
) '')
,(.
'
)
'') ) , , ' ' ) ,%
'
(>>' 5 ) ) 9,% ' () ., ,
9, '
,
.,
' '
' ?(' *,
0
!"
#!!
$%$!
&!
!
'% )'%
) '') ) % ?(' *,
0 ' (, )'%
.,
,
' )
.,) , 6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution.
6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of
dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the respondent."
)
'(' '')
(>>' )'%
-) '%
,
/, 3
() ' '
( ,' )'%
9,'%
'
#$
' '
''
0 ' % % '%
*
$6
0,'
@,
#$ ''
#
'
='' , ) %
%
'
'
!> 9
,
4 4 4