U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. And Others Vs. A.K. Parul
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2263 of 1993
Petitioner: U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. And Others
Respondent: A.K. Parul
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2263 of 1993
Judges: K. VENKATASWAMI & B.N. KIRPAL, JJ
Date of Judgment: Dec 04, 1997
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Article 226 – Removal from service – Punishment awarded after departmental enquiry – Set-aside by High Court – Justification. Held that in view of State Bank of India V. Samarendra Kishore (JT 1994 (1) SC 217) there was no justification with High Court as it is for disciplinary authority to decide the punishment. Where charges are proved their punishment is not to be interfered with.(Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow JT 1994 (1) SC 217
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 20-8-1991 in Writ Petition No. 8467 of 1988.
2. The respondent, formerly a Bus Conductor, was charged for taking certain passengers without ticket. An enquiry was con-ducted departmentally and he was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent from the post of the Conductor. He moved the High Court challenging the order of removal. The High Court, while concurring with the finding of the authority that charges levelled against the respondent were proved, howev-er, held that the punishment awarded did not commensurate with the gravity of the charge. On the basis, the High Court set aside the punishment and directed the reinstatement of the respondent. It further gave direction to extend all the benefits to the respondent arising out of the setting aside of the removal order.
3. Aggrieved by that, this appeal is filed by the appellant. This Court consistently has taken the view that while exercising judicial review the courts shall not normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the authorities and this will be more so when the Court finds the charges were proved. The interference with the punishment on the facts of this case cannot be sus-tained. In State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow JT 1994 (1) SC 217 this Court held that imposition of proper pun-ishment is within the discretion and judgment of the Disciplinary Authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to inter-fere with it, but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reasons that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. As noticed earlier, the High Court, having found the charges proved, is not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, particularly when in this case, the respondent was once removed from service on the charge of corrup-tion and reinstated. On the facts, the interference by the High Court was not at all justified. Accordingly, the appeal is al-lowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dis-missed. No order as to costs.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 20-8-1991 in Writ Petition No. 8467 of 1988.
2. The respondent, formerly a Bus Conductor, was charged for taking certain passengers without ticket. An enquiry was con-ducted departmentally and he was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent from the post of the Conductor. He moved the High Court challenging the order of removal. The High Court, while concurring with the finding of the authority that charges levelled against the respondent were proved, howev-er, held that the punishment awarded did not commensurate with the gravity of the charge. On the basis, the High Court set aside the punishment and directed the reinstatement of the respondent. It further gave direction to extend all the benefits to the respondent arising out of the setting aside of the removal order.
3. Aggrieved by that, this appeal is filed by the appellant. This Court consistently has taken the view that while exercising judicial review the courts shall not normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the authorities and this will be more so when the Court finds the charges were proved. The interference with the punishment on the facts of this case cannot be sus-tained. In State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow JT 1994 (1) SC 217 this Court held that imposition of proper pun-ishment is within the discretion and judgment of the Disciplinary Authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to inter-fere with it, but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reasons that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. As noticed earlier, the High Court, having found the charges proved, is not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, particularly when in this case, the respondent was once removed from service on the charge of corrup-tion and reinstated. On the facts, the interference by the High Court was not at all justified. Accordingly, the appeal is al-lowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dis-missed. No order as to costs.
