Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0] [Entire Act]

State of Andhra Pradesh - Section

Section 2003 in The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991

2003.

(4)Supreme 313SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From A.P. High Court)Shivaraj V.Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Director General R.P.F. & Ors. Appeallants
Versus
Ch. Sai Babu Respondent
Civil Appeal No.4622/2000Decided on 29-01-2003Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - Rule 153 - Charge sheet under framing five charges of misconduct. After enquiry charges found proved - Punishment of removal from service awarded - High Court finding punishment disproportionate to charges proved - Modified it to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect - Appeal against to Supreme Court - Whether High Court was right in modifying the punishment in the facts of the case? (No, case remanded to D.B. for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment imposed) - Appeal allowed accordingly.Held : Normally, the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by high court or tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works. In the present case we do not find that there has been a consideration of all the relevant facts and the learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons in order to modify the punishment imposed. The division Bench of the High Court also did not examine the matter in proper perspective but simply concurred with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Normally in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, high courts or tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. In this case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1989 and to shorten the litigation we think appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the writ appeal No. 952 of 1998 to the Division Bench of the High Court to reconsider the case only on the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent having regard to all relevant factors including the facts that the respondent was a member of Railway Protection Force and in the light of the observations made above. Since the proceedings are pending for quite some time, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is ordered in the above terms.(Paras 6 and 7)No costs.Counsel for the Parties:For the Appellants : Mukul Rohatgi, Addl. Solicitor General, S. Wasim, A. Quadri, Mrs. Anil Katyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.For the Respondent : R.S. Hedge, Allam Nagabushanam, Ms.N. Annapooorni, Advocates.IMPORTANT POINTNormally, in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate, High Court and Tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration the quantum of punishment.ORDER :