Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A.N. Khan vs Union Of India And Ors. Through The ... on 2 November, 2015
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan
1
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.10 SECTION XV
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.30403/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/04/2015
in DBCWP No.6570/2013 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At
Jaipur)
A.N. KHAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS Respondent(s)
(With interim relief and office report)
Date : 02/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Danish Zubair Khan,Adv.
Mr. K.M. Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Admittedly, the petitioner's application for leave from 12.06.1999 to December, 1999, was granted. He was asked to join his office in January, 2000. But despite several letters issued to him by the concerned Authority, he did not join the duty on the ground of personal work and ill-health of his mother. Thereafter, he joined the duty on 05.07.2000.
On 11.07.2000, the petitioner applied for a month's leave. Signature Not Verified Subsequently, he requested for extension of his leave on many Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2015.11.04 15:53:51 IST Reason: occasions, which was not granted by the department. Thereafter, he applied for voluntary retirement that was not accepted by the 2 competent authority and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by the department which resulted in his dismissal from service.
Although the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner warranted imposition of major penalty of “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year” but the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) disagreed with the said recommendation and passed an order of his dismissal from service.
So far as the imposition of punishment is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. However, in our view, the questions as to whether the punishment of the petitioner i.e. his dismissal from service, is disproportionate with the charges levelled against him and whether the order of his removal from service shall be the appropriate punishment, need to be examined.
Issue notice limited to the aforesaid questions.
(Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal)
Court Master Court Master