UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. S.S. AHLUWALIA

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 377

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.P. MATHUR, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

Case summary

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. S.S. AHLUWALIA.pdf

Judgment text

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. S. S. AHLUWALIA AUGUST 24, 2007 (G. P. MATHURAND P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN,JJ. ) Service law : Reinstatement with consequential benefits-Order, validity of-Held: Order for reinstatement could be passed when employee is dismissed or removed from service after initiation of disciplinary proceedings and said dismissal or removal is found to be illegal-On facts employee himselfsought voluntary retirement and had actually been relieved-Thereafter, was no longer in service and had not done any work-Also no delay in accepting his request for voluntary retirement-Disciplinary proceedings concluded against employee with imposing small punishment-Thus, case for reinstatement with consequential benefits not made out-Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 43(d)(i). Penalty-Imposition of, in pursuance of disciplinary proceedingslnterference with-Held: ls limited-Court can interfere only when the penalty ifl'!

posed is shockingly dispropodionate to the charges proved-In such case court is to remit the matter to Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration- On facts, charges proved against employee and penalty of I0% deduction from pension for one year imposed-Penalty imposed being small, no interference called for-Judicial Review. · Respondent, employed with CRPF filed application seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 1. 7. 1993. Application was rejected. He then made representations for voluntary retirement which was accepted on 23. 2. 1994 subject to the condition that the proceedings for imposing major penalty initiated against him would continue. Respondent was relieved from services on 2. 3. 1994. However, his retiral benefits were not released and was informed by order dated 12. 5. 1995 that it would be released on completion of -1' departmental inquiry. Inquiry was conducted and charges were proved, except for one.

Union Public Service Commission imposed penalty of 10% deduction from his basic pension for one year. Competant Authority upheld the same. Jn Aggreived respondent filed writ petition for quashing the order dated >- 12. 5. 1995, for release of retiral benefit and for directions to treat the respondent as deemed to have yoluntarily retired with effect from 1. 7. 1993. Thereafter, respondent filed amendment application seeking quashing of the order retiring him and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. Another writ petition was filed for quashing the order imposing the penalty. The Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petitions. The order imposing penalty of 10% deduction in pension for one year was set aside and respondent was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1.

The order for reinstatement can be passed where as a result ofdisciplinary proceedings initiated by an employer an employee is dismissed or removed from service and the said dismissal or removal is found to be illegal by a court of law. In the instant case, respondent had himself sought voluntary retirement and had actually been relieved on 2. 3. 1994. Thereafter he was no longer in service and had not done any work. The Single Judge of High Court as also Division Bench of the High Court did not advert to this aspect of the matter. The Division Bench merely observed that had the appellants disposed of the matter ofvoluntary retirement ofthe respondent in 1993 and had he been permitted to retire in that year itself he stood fair chance of getting a re-employment which is wholly unsustainable in law. In the application moved by the respondent on 15. 3. 1993 he had sought voluntary retirement from 1. 7. 1993. This request was finally accepted on 23. 2. 1994 and he was relieved on. 2. 3.

1994. As such there was not much delay in accepting the prayer of the respondent for voluntary retirement. The disciplinary proceedings had finally concluded against the respondent with . imposition ofsmall punishment In these circumstances, there was absolutely no ground for directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. (Para 6) (381-F-H; 382-A-B] 1. 2. The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result ofdisciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only ifit finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the >matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser U. O. l. v. S. S. AHLUWALIA[G. P. MATHUR,J. ] 379 penalty.

In the instant case, the penalty imposed upon the respondent was very small-10% deduction from pension for one year. Thus, there was hardly any occasion for the High Court to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the Competent Authority. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially to the fact that the penalty was a small one, that part of the order ofthe Single Judge as also ofDivision Bench is not interfered with. The directions issued for reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits including salary and promotion are set aside. (Paras 7 and 8) (382-C-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4247 of2006. From the Judgment and Final Order dated 11. 1. 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 409/2002. T. S. Doabia, Sunita Shanna, Sushma Suri and Manpreet Singh Doabia for the Appellants. S. S. Ahluwalia Respondent-in-Person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G. P. MATHUR, J. l.

This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11. 1. 2006 of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court by which the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 20. 12. 2001 of the learned Single Judge was affinned. 2. The respondent S. S. Ahluwalia joined the Indian Anny on 28. 6. 1965 as Commissioned Officer. In the year 1973 he was relieved from the army and he joined Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The respondent moved an application under Rule 43(d)(i) ofthe Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 1. 7. 1993. The application moved by the respondent was rejected on 12. 7. 1993. He gave representations on 30. 7. 1993 and 10. 8. 1993 for re-examination of his case and to accord sanction for his voluntary retirement.

On reconsideration of the matter the appellants accepted the prayer made by the respondent on 23. 2. 1994 subject to the condition that the proceedings for - there was not much delay in accepting the prayer of the respondent for voluntary retirement. The disciplinary proceedings had finally concluded against the respondent with imposition of small punishment. In these circumstances there was absolutely no ground for directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. 7. The learned single Judge has also set aside the order by which a penalty of I0% deduction in pension for one year had been imposed. This part of the order has also been affirmed by the Division Bench. It may be mentioned here that charge No. I was found to be partly proved and charges Nos. II, III and IV were found to be fully proved. The scope ofjudicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited.

The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty. In the present case the penalty imposed upon the respondent was very small, namely, 10% deduction from pension for one year. Thus there was hardly any occasion for the High Cou1t to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the Competent Authority. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially to the fact that the penalty was a small one being I0% deduction from the pension for one year only, we do not want to interfere with that part of the order of the learned single Judge and also ofthe Division Bench. 8. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.

The directions issued for reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits including salary and promotion are set aside. 9. No costs. N. J. Appeal Partly allowed.