Madras High Court
G.Sundaramoorthy vs The Presiding Officer on 5 March, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.12372/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.12372 OF 2013
G.Sundaramoorthy .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Deputy General Manager
State Bank of India
Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the
1st respondent relating to the award dated 31.07.2006 in I.D. No.105/2005, quash
the same and issue consequential directions to the 2nd respondent to reinstate
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm )
____________
W.P. No.12372/2013
the petitioner in service with consequential benefits with continuity of service,
back pay.
For Petitioner : Mr. Balaji Haider for
M/s. J.Muthukumaran
For Respondents : Mr. C.Harsha Raj for R-2
ORDER
Assailing the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority and affirmed by the court below, imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working in the 2 nd respondent bank as Note-Stitching Machine Operator in the cash department While being so employed, on 3.5.2002, the cashier reported the missing of two pieces of one hundred rupee notes from a fresh denomination note packet and, thereafter, claimed that two one hundred rupee notes, each from two packets were missing 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 from a fresh denomination note packet. It is further averred that the cashier reported the missing of cash to the higher officials and the higher officials came to the spot and searched the petitioner and from a polythene bag, which was kept near an unmanned counter, which is alleged to have been kept by the petitioner, retrieved 100 rupee note and another one piece of One Hundred rupee note was retrieved from the packet of the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner was the note obtained by the petitioner from the Teller in exchange of other denomination notes. It is the further case of the petitioner that the whole episode of retrieval was stage managed.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to his house and he was kept outside while his house was searched by one Assistant General Manager and the wife of the petitioner was questioned. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent initially issued a memo on 29.4.2002, which was refused to be received by the petitioner and once again on 3.8.2002, another memo was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had surreptitiously removed 100 rupee notes from the cash department. The petitioner denied all the allegations and not being satisfied, the 2nd respondent initiated enquiry and appointed enquiry officer. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
4. The enquiry officer adopted biased procedure in the enquiry and the procedure adopted was against the well-settled procedure prescribed for enquiry. The enquiry officer permitted witnesses to be examined against the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to witnesses, who were not shown as witnesses. In effect, the enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that some of the charges have been proved. Based on the findings recorded in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority, vide final order dated 4.5.2004, in terms of clause 67 (b) of the Memorandum of Settlement imposed the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 11.8.2004 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
5. Aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner raised I.D. No.105/2005 before the court below and after hearing the parties, the court below confirmed the order passed by the authorities vide award dated 31.7.2006 aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorities failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective in line with the explanation offered by the petitioner and, therefore, the findings recorded on the above materials are perverse and arbitrary.
7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the act of the petitioner in not receiving the letter dated 7.12.2001 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as being an act of insubordination is totally erroneous as the petitioner being a low grade servant, had submitted that he would seek the assistance of the Union and, thereafter, receive the letter, which is an act aimed at safeguarding himself.
8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is no material to show that the petitioner had taken the missing 100 rupee notes clandestinely and surreptitiously secluded it in the polythene bag as the cashier was the whole in-charge of the currency and there is no evidence which could form the basis to mulct the responsibility on the petitioner. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though in service arena, the case is premised on preponderance of probability, however, there should be sufficient material to infer that such a probability exists and without any such material, based on mere inferences, fastening the guilt on the petitioner is impermissible and it only shows the mala fide motives of the 2 nd respondent to oust the petitioner from the services of the bank.
10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even assuming without admitting that the charges preferred have been proved, even then, awarding the extreme punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled and the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the service of the petitioner and modified the punishment considering the familial situation of the petitioner. However, all the above aspects have been totally lost sight of from being considered by the court below, which requires to be interfered with.
11. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions :- 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
i) State of Uttaranchal & Ors. – Vs – Kharak Singh (2008 (8) SCC 236);
ii) Asst. Executive Engineer, Karnataka – Vs – Shivalinga (2002 (10) SCC 167);
iii) M.V.Bijlani – Vs – Union of India & Ors. (2006 (5) SCC 88);
iv) Assistant Engineer, CAD, Kota – Vs – Dhyan Kunwar (2006 (5) SCC 481);
v) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation – Vs – Babu Ram (2006 (5) SCC 433);
vi) U.P. State Transport Corporation – Vs – Ram Singh & Anr.
(2008 (17) SCC 627);
vii) Raghubir Singh – General Manager, Haryana Roadways (2014 (10) SCC 301);
viii) Prabhakar – Vs – Joint Director, Sericulture Dept. & Anr.
(2015 (15) SCC 1);
ix) A.Thangavelu – Vs – Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chennai (W.P. No.22895/2008 – Dated 25.01.2018);
x) The Deputy General Manager – Vs – Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chennai (W.P. No.13871/2016 – Dated 10.03.2021);
xi) The Workmen, IOB Employees Union – Vs – The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (W.A. No.1493/2014 – Dated 26.3.2024);
xii) The General Manager Personnel, Syndicate Bank & Ors. – Vs
- B.S.N.Prasad (C.A. No.6327/2024 – Dated 21.01.2025); and
xiii) The General Manager, Indian Bank – Vs – Presiding Officer, CGIT & Anr. (W.A. No.387/2024 – Dated 20.12.2024) 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the writ petition is hopelessly time barred inasmuch as after an undue delay of seven years, the award passed by the court below has been challenged without properly explaining the reason for the delay. Inasmuch as the delay has not been properly explained, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the bills submitted towards LFC was found with many discrepancies, which prompted notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent, which were not received by the petitioner, which reveals clear insubordination. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner, while engaged in note stitching work, was found to be removing one hundred rupee notes and was caught red handed by the officers and since many notes were missing from the fresh note bundles and some notes were found on the person of the petitioner, the Assistant General Manager was deputed to the petitioner’s residence for the purpose of conducting preliminary enquiry prior to initiation of departmental proceedings. 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the 2 nd respondent had clearly proved the delinquency of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry with regard to the charges framed against him and the petitioner was also given adequate opportunity to put forth his case and also cross examine the witnesses. There was no violation of principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer had followed all the procedures of the departmental enquiry before rendering his findings. Based on the enquiry report the disciplinary authority, taking a lenient view, had imposed the punishment of removal from service, which would result in the petitioner to receive his provident fund and without putting him disqualified for future employment, which punishment was confirmed by the appellate authority.
15. The court below, considering all the materials and also based on the ratio laid down by the courts with regard to interference in the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and also considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, had thought it fit not to interfere with the said punishment and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 punishment imposed and, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
16. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record as also the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the parties.
17. It is an undisputed fact that during the relevant point of time, the workman was working as Note-Stitching Machine Operator during which period the surreptitious removal of Rupee One Hundred notes is alleged to have taken place. Materials have been placed before the enquiry with regard to the acts of the petitioner. Contentions have been raised by the workman with regard to fairness of the enquiry and also procedural flaws in the conduct of the enquiry. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that there is any infraction of violation of principles of natural justice and that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to put forth his case. Though the petitioner has raisecd concern with regard to procedural flaws and fairness, as certain witnesses, who have not been shown as witnesses, have been examined, however, it is to be 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 pointed out that disciplinary enquiry is not akin to judicial enquiry before a court of law and strict rules of evidence is not required to be followed, inasmuch as the enquiry has been conducted in a proper manner and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. As aforesaid, there is no qualms raised by the petitioner with regard to infraction of principles of natural justice. Therefore, there could be no question with regard to the manner in which the enquiry has been conducted and the fairness in the enquiry, though there may have been certain procedural flaws, which would in no way term the enquiry to be biased or flawed.
18. It is the settled legal position that insofar as departmental proceedings is concerned, the appreciation of evidence is based on preponderance of probability and not in the manner in which evidence is appraised during a criminal prosecution. The enquiry authority has satisfied himself with regard to the materials placed before it and the appellate authority as also the Tribunal have appreciated the enquiry report and accepted that the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner. In fact, the Tribunal has held that the 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 misconduct cannot be assailed to be perverse as it has been rendered on legal evidence and that there is no question of adequacy of evidence.
19. In the above backdrop, it is to be pointed out that this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter of judicial review, cannot reappreciate the evidence as a court of first instance or appellate authority. The duty of this Court is only to see as to whether the enquiry has been fair and proper and that the enquiry has been conducted in consonance with principles of natural justice.
20. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal reveals that the workman has been granted sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings and if the workman had not utilised the said opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in the departmental enquiry, the workman cannot claim that opportunity was not given to him. Its only the probative value of the evidence to the prudent mind to arrive at the conclusion on the basis of the said evidence and it is not a proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is warranted with the evidence tendered. The Tribunal, on proper appreciation has held that the evidence, both 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 oral and documentary, placed during enquiry, unerringly point to the misconduct of the workman and, therefore, had refrained from interfering with the said finding rendered by the enquiry officer.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in B.C. Chaturvedi – Vs - Union of India, (1995 (6) SCC 749), while dealing with the issue pertaining to the power of the Court relating to judicial review, held as under :
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment.
In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” (Emphasis Supplied) 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
22. In Director General of Police, RPF & Ors. - Vs – Rajendra Kumar Dubey (C.A. No.3820/2020 dated 25.11.20), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, adverting to the various decisions of the Apex Court relating to the interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings, including the decision in Chaturvedi's case (supra), held as under :-
“12.1 ...... It is well settled that the High Court must not act as an appellate authority, and re-appreciate the evidence led before the enquiry officer.
We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a departmental enquiry against a public servant. In State of Andhra Pradesh v S.Sree Rama Rao, a three judge bench of this Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may, however interfere where the departmental authority which has held the proceedings against the delinquent officer are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, where the findings are based on no evidence, which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the authorities were actuated by some extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair decision, or allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations, or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. If however the enquiry is properly held, the departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition.
These principles were further reiterated in the State of Andhra Pradesh v Chitra Venkata Rao. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The court exercises the power not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal on the appreciation of evidence, are not re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ court, but not an error of fact, however grave it may be. A writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the finding of fact, the tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence. A finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the material evidence adduced before the tribunal is insufficient or inadequate 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point, and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal. In subsequent decisions of this Court, including Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, Director General RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v T.T. Murali, Union of India v. Manab Kumar Guha, these principles have been consistently followed.
In a recent judgment delivered by this Court in the State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh this Court has summed up the law in following words :
“33. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does the judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy – deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards as a perverse determination of fact. Proportionality is an entrenched feature of our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has recognized it for long years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of the evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining a steady sail between the banks of these two shores which have been termed as the two ends of the spectrum. Judges do not rest with a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they exercise judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the judges’ craft is in vain.” In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court would determine whether : (a) the enquiry is held by the competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations which are extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court held that : “13.Under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not :
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” (Emphasis Supplied)
23. From the ratio laid down above, it is implicitly clear that the Courts, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot extend the examination to the correctness of the act of the disciplinary authority, but only limit itself to the manner in which the decision has been arrived at by the authority and whether the same is in accordance with law. This Court is to test only the correctness of the decision arrived at by the authority on the basis of the evidence before it, which has since been confirmed by the Tribunal and not proceed with the case as if it is an appeal against the order of punishment.
20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
24. The court below, on dissection of the evidence tendered before it as also before the enquiry officer, which formed the basis of the report, had accepted the findings of guilt recorded against the workman and this Court, sitting in judicial review, is not inclined to interfere with the said finding, so long as it is not perverse and it is in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
25. Now the only question that requires the determination of this Court is whether the modification of punishment, as espoused by the petitioner is required in the present case.
26. A careful perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as also the court below reveals that appreciating the findings, the disciplinary authority, to give certain leniency to the petitioner, has imposed the punishment of removal from service, which would enable the petitioner to receive provident fund. embarking upon the scope of interference with the punishment, the Tribunal has recorded a finding 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013
27. There could be no quarrel with the fact that the petitioner being in public employment is supposed to exhibit utmost sincerity and honesty as hs involves public money. When the petitioner is alleged to have surreptitiously removed some money from the bank and when the disciplinary authority himself has showed some lenience, necessarily that would be a pointer for this Court to probe further to find out as to the necessity for giving such leniency. Not always when cases of this nature come before this Court, which involves misappropriation of public money, never any leniency is showed to the delinquent. But when the disciplinary authority himself has shown leniency, definitely it necessitates this Court to ponder what would have passed in the mind of the disciplinary authority while passing the said order. Definitely, the disciplinary authority did not want the petitioner to be out of employment with a stigma attached to him, as the family of the petitioner would have been taken into consideration when the order of punishment was passed.
28. The petitioner was a class-IV employee with the bank holding the post of note-stitching assistant. High standards of probity are required of persons who 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 are in public employment and definitely the act of the petitioner is highly deprecatable. But considering the family situation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has shown leniency by removing the petitioner from service. When the family circumstances of the petitioner is looked at, mindful of the fact that removal of the petitioner from service and compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service would have the very same impact on the 2nd respondent and its customers, but would mildly alter the family position of the petitioner, this Court needs to look at the modification of punishment in exercise of its powers of judicial review.
29. Therefore, the only issue that requires the consideration of this Court is the proportionality of the punishment with reference to the delinquency committed by the petitioner.
30. The proportionality of the punishment inflicted on the delinquent had been considered by the Apex Court in V.S.P. – Vs - Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008 (5) SCC 569), and it was held as under:-
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 “12. While answering the aforesaid question/issue, the decision of this Court in the case of Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (supra), on the judicial review and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is required to be referred to. In the said decision, after referring to a catena of judgments of this Court, it is observed and held by this Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is limited. It is observed that it cannot set aside a well- reasoned order only on grounds of sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and held that once it is found that all the procedural requirements had been complied with, courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. It is further observed that the superior courts, only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality, however if the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.”
31. The precedents on the issue of interference with the punishment imposed has been oft considered by the Courts and it has been the consistent view of the Courts that it is always within the domain of the disciplinary authority to decide on the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent, which should be 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 proportionate to the act of the delinquent. Only when the punishment is disproportionate and shocking to the conscience, should the courts interfere in the same in exercise of powers under Article 226. In Prem Nath Bali – Vs - High Court of Delhi (2015 (16) SCC 415), the Supreme Court held as under :-
“20. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules.
21. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then the courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment. Such power is exercised when the court finds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the conscience of the court or when it is found to be in contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 punishment as against what was originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the appointing authority.” (Emphasis Supplied)
32. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court above, it is crystal clear that the power to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only if the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and, thereby, shocking the conscience of the Court or if it is in contravention of the Rules.
33. There could be no quarrel with the fact that the misconduct of the workman is grave in nature. However, in the same stretch, it cannot also be lost sight of as to what weighed in the mind of the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment of removal from service. The punishment of dismissal from service would have definitely weighed as a disproportionate punishment in the mind of the authority while passing the order of punishment. In view of the 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 fact that removal from service and compulsorily retiring from service would both have the same effect on the petitioner, barring the monetary benefits that would enure to him on account of such modification, which would help in the sustenance of the family, considering the low position occupied by the petitioner in the hierarchy of the bank, and considering the length of service of the petitioner, which would not in any way affect the monetary compensation at the hands of the employer, be it removal from service or compulsorily retired, this Court is inclined to exercise the power u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is inclined to modify the punishment from one or removal to one of compulsory retirement, which punishment would be just and reasonable.
34. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court, while is not inclined to interfere with the findings relating to the delinquency, however, in the interest of justice, is inclined to modify the punishment from one of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in punishment. There shall be no order as to costs. 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 05.03.2025 Index : Yes / No GLN 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 To The Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court 1st Floor, ‘B’ Wing 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan Chennai 600 006.
29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN W.P. NO. 12372 OF 2013 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm ) ____________ W.P. No.12372/2013 05.03.2025 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 05:55:43 pm )