High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19510/2017allowed

Ram Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2026-02-10Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar8 pages

"#$#%& ' ' ( ) *)

''''

# #% + , +$-$ . .

'''' $/%!

% $ )& 01 )'

. .

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Mansi, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6.

3+ 45&

!!"#!!$

( )* !) + .! /

1 2 0

+3 0

)! )* !) "

.!(/

.5 6

( )$ !))9 : !) !))9

< 1

=0 : )( )! !) ) .!/

5 6>

)! )( !) ) () )9 !) .(/ ( 4

? :

)9 )" !) )

0 !$

!* !) : () )9 !) !

!+ )2 !) (

6 - . )

0 = 0

( )* !) + ,- .! /

;

)! )* !) "

.!(/ +

; 0

= 0 "

& 0

5 6 =

? :

)9 )" !) )

!$ )9 !) () )9 !) .(/

. 2/

1 +2

! "# $ %& '( & %& & & & ) * ') & &(& + ++ %& ,- ' ( && +

&& & ( ) , &( ++ ) % ) % + && & + & + ../ ') & + & && + & & + ) 0 & + & ) )

' # $$ & %& + *1'

&& *, #2 !# $$ *1'

&& &&&

) + , +

+ ,& &

& %

, ) , + () & % &

&& *& + & & *3. '&&) & &

& +

&& -+ ) +

+ 4 $

5 6 )( )! !) )

.!/

()

)! )( !) )

)9 )" !) )

* The scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. It is settled law that this Court may only exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the findings recorded in a disciplinary action are arbitrary, disproportionate, tainted with procedural illegality, or when manifest prejudice in caused. This Court must confine itself to ensuring that the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority are justified by the material available on record, that the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice, and that the penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct.

A Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602, speaking through Justice B.S Chauhan, made the following observations in this regard: " 29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to

( be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds. "

10.

Further reliance may be placed on the judgment rendered by a Three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72, wherein, speaking through Justice S.P. Kurdukar, the following observations were made:- "20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee .

There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 SCR 521] , Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis v.

1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] ."

11.

Further still, the doctrine of proportionality mandates that any penalty imposed upon a delinquent employee in disciplinary proceedings must bear a just and reasonable relationship to the gravity of the misconduct established against them. A punishment which is excessive, unwarranted, or significantly disproportionate to the proven charges not only offends the canons of fair play and reasonableness but also constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The principle further extends to ensure that the sanction must be tailored to "suit the offence and the offender," thereby requiring an individualized assessment of the nature of the misconduct, the attendant circumstances, the employee's service record, and the absence or presence of extenuating or aggravating factors. 12.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra Vs. State of U.P. (1982) 3 SCC 346 has also held that the punishment must always be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram Vs. State of H.P 1983 (2) SCC 442, speaking through Justice D.A. Desai observed as follows:- "15. ......It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution....."

13.

In the matter at hand, it appears that the petitioner is at fault for negligence, as evidenced by his casual approach towards court cases.

However, the punishment imposed on the petitioner appears to be disproportionate to the misconduct. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned punishment order dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure P-21) is hereby modified to the extent that the 5% cut in pension is limited to two years from the date of its imposition. If any excess amount has been recovered from the petitioner, same must be refunded to him. 14.

In case the dues, if any, are not released to the petitioner within a period of three months of receiving a certified copy of this order, he would be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of receiving a copy of this order till its actual realization. 3 .

' ' (

A 6# B #1 !

A 0 B #1