Ram Autar Singh Vs. State Public Service Tribunal and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1821 of 1998
Petitioner: Ram Autar Singh
Respondent: State Public Service Tribunal and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1821 of 1998
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & A.P. MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 1998
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136, 311(2) dismissal – Police constable remaining on one day’s hunger strike for opposing his transfer. Held that it could not how required infliction of dismissal. Re-instatement with 50% back wages directed. Constable to tender written apology and undertaking to accept transfer wherever ordered. (Para 4)
Constitution
Articles 226, 136, 311(2) dismissal – Police constable remaining on one day’s hunger strike for opposing his transfer. Held that it could not how required infliction of dismissal. Re-instatement with 50% back wages directed. Constable to tender written apology and undertaking to accept transfer wherever ordered. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent 1 is a pro forma respondent. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the appeal was heard finally.
3. The short question is whether the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the appellant – a police constable, on the ground that he had remained on hunger strike for one day is grossly disproportionate or not. Only on this short point, notice was issued on the special leave petition which has now culminated into this appeal on grant of special leave.
4. In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that he remained absent for one day on hunger strike for opposing his transfer it could not have been said that it re-quired the punishment of dismissal from service. Consequently, in our view, interest of justice will be served if the order of dismissal is set aside and instead the appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service with only 50 per cent of back wages as we ate told that since 1991 till date, he is out of a job. The appellant shall also file a written apology for what he had done on the fateful day and must undertake to be transferred to any place triinstated with continuity of service and with all other consequential benefits. 50% back wages shall be paid to the appellant in six weeks of his reporting for duty. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent 1 is a pro forma respondent. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the appeal was heard finally.
3. The short question is whether the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the appellant – a police constable, on the ground that he had remained on hunger strike for one day is grossly disproportionate or not. Only on this short point, notice was issued on the special leave petition which has now culminated into this appeal on grant of special leave.
4. In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that he remained absent for one day on hunger strike for opposing his transfer it could not have been said that it re-quired the punishment of dismissal from service. Consequently, in our view, interest of justice will be served if the order of dismissal is set aside and instead the appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service with only 50 per cent of back wages as we ate told that since 1991 till date, he is out of a job. The appellant shall also file a written apology for what he had done on the fateful day and must undertake to be transferred to any place triinstated with continuity of service and with all other consequential benefits. 50% back wages shall be paid to the appellant in six weeks of his reporting for duty. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs
