Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ashok Kumar Nigam vs State Of U.P. on 13 April, 2016
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S).3908 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.20042 of 2012)
ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADES & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant was serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. He was charged with misconduct, found guilty and awarded a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved, he preferred a writ petition before the High Court in which he assailed not only the finding of the guilt but even the punishment Signature Not Verified awarded Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh to him. A Division Bench of the High Court, while Date: 2016.04.19 17:33:16 IST Reason:
upholding the finding of guilt, took the view that instead of stoppage of two increments, the appellant should have been 2 punished more severely by directing his removal from service. The High Court accordingly directed issue of a notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from service. It is that part of the order which has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal.
Appearing for the appellant, Mr. D.K. Singh, strenuously argued that the High Court had misdirected itself in issuing a notice of enhancement of the punishment awarded to the appellant.
He submitted that by doing so, the High Court had placed the appellant in a worse-off position, simply because he had challenged the punishment awarded to him. That was, according to Mr. Singh, legally impermissible. In support of his submissions, Mr. Singh placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court in Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India and Others – (2005) 12 SCC 219 and Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Another – (2007) 4 SCC 247.
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the question whether the High Court was right in issuing a show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment awarded to the appellant, had become academic in view of the fact that the appellant had since retired from service. It was urged that the question whether the High Court was justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to direct a show cause notice to the appellant could, therefore, be left open and the appeal disposed of, discharging the show cause notice ordered against the appellant.
The legal position, as to the powers of the High Court to 3 direct enhancement of punishment in a writ petition arising out of disciplinary action taken against an employee, stands concluded by the decisions of this Court, referred to above. In Pradeep Kumar's case (supra), in a somewhat similar circumstances, a similar question had arisen for consideration before this Court. In that case too the High Court had found the punishment of reduction in pay and denial of increments awarded to the appellant to be inadequate, for the gravity of the misconduct. The High Court had accordingly remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to award the maximum punishment of dismissal from service which direction was then assailed before this Court on the ground that the High Court had no such power to direct enhancement of punishment either by itself or by remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority. An employee complaining against the punishment awarded to him could not, observed this Court, be placed in a worse-off position for coming to the Court. The following passages from the judgment is in this regard apposite:
“3. According to the appellant, similar punishment was inflicted on the other two employees. Being aggrieved, all three employees filed separate writ petitions before the High Court. The writ petitions of the other two employees were merely dismissed as withdrawn. As far as the appellant was concerned, the High Court not only dismissed the writ petition but also directed the punishing authority to reconsider the punishment imposed in view of the observations of the High Court and held that the maximum penalty of dismissal from service ought to have been accorded. There was a further direction that the action taken 4 against the appellant should be intimated to the Court as soon as possible.
4. Irrespective of the crime/offence with which the appellant may have been charged, it was not open to the High Court to have issued such a direction.
The scope of judicial review did not allow the High Court to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authorities on the appellant. Besides, a writ petitioner cannot be put in a worse position by coming to court. The directions of the High Court are not sustainable and must be set aside. We are told by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent authority pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court initiated proceedings against the appellant for the purpose of imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. We have held that the direction of the High Court was wholly outside its jurisdiction. The appeals are thus allowed and the High Court's directions are set aside. The disciplinary enquiry initiated on the basis of the High Court's order is consequently also quashed. However, the writ petitions will stand dismissed. There is no order as to costs.” To the same effect is the decision in Ramesh Chander Singh's case (supra) where too the question whether the High Court could interfere with the order of punishment in a matter where the employee challenged the punishment awarded to him in a writ petition, fell for consideration before this Court. The question was answered in the following words:
“6. Based on the enquiry report, the appellant 5 was served with a notice to show cause as to why his two increments should not be withheld with cumulative effect. The matter was placed before the Full Court on 20.11.1999 and the Full Court by its resolution imposed a major punishment of withholding two annual increments of the appellant with cumulative effect. The appellant filed a review application against the said punishment and the same was rejected. Thereupon, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the punishment imposed on him . By judgment dated 3.10.2005, the writ petition was dismissed and in the very same judgment the appellant was directed to show cause within three weeks from the date of the judgment as to why the High Court should not consider substitution of the punishment imposed, by removing him from service. Pursuant to the notice, the appellant appeared and presented his case before the Division Bench. By judgment dated 25.11.2005, the appellant was reduced to the rank next below, that is, Civil Judge (Senior Division). Both the judgment of the Division bench are challenged before us.” We have, in the light of the above decisions, no hesitation in holding that the High Court had fallen in a palpable error in directing issuance of a show cause notice to the appellant. The appellant could not, as observed earlier, be placed in a worse-off situation because of his having sought redress against the punishment awarded to him by the disciplinary authority which in the instant case is the High Court itself.6
In the result, we allow this appeal and direct setting aside of that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court had directed the issue of show cause notice to the appellant for award of a heavier punishment upon him. The fact that the appellant has since retired from service, is only an added feature why the direction of the High Court should be set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
.....................CJI.
(T.S. THAKUR) .......................J. (R. BANUMATHI) .......................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) NEW DELHI DATED 13th April, 2016.7
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20042/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/04/2012 in CMWP No. 52482/2007 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad) ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal) Date : 13/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. D.K. Singh,Adv.
Ms. Komal Mundhra,Adv.
Mr. Saurab Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P.N. Misra,Sr.Adv.
(R-1) Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Abhisth Kumar,Adv.
(R-2) Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv.
Mr. Yashvardhan,Adv.
Mr. Kunal Godhwani,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, this appeal is allowed : “In the result, we allow this appeal and direct setting aside of that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court had directed the issue of show cause notice to the appellant for award of a heavier punishment upon him. The fact that the appellant has since retired from service, is only an added feature why the direction of the High Court should be set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)