Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Head Constable Naresh Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 1 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 1748/2011 New Delhi this the 1st day of December, 2011 HONBLE MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Head Constable Naresh Kumar No.336/NE, aged years S/o Late Shri Ved Pal R/o H-235, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Smt. Pratima Gupta) ORDER MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A):
The applicant in this OA is Head Constable in Delhi Police, who has rendered almost 35 years of service. He was proceeded against departmentally vide order dated 1.09.2009 and was suspended vide order dated 6.08.2009. The suspension was withdrawn vide order dated 3.11.2009. In the departmental inquiry, the applicant admitted the allegation and promised to improve his behaviour in future but the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 9.03.2010 imposed the punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently and the suspension period was decided as period not spent on duty. The applicant filed a statutory appeal raising the specific plea regarding the proportionality of punishment awarded to him. He stated that he had rendered 35 years of service and was on the verge of promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector and that the misconduct to which he had admitted was not one which merited major punishment. The appeal was decided vide order dated 11.08.2010 and rejected. This OA has been filed on one specific ground only that in appeal preferred by the applicant he had raised the plea of proportionality of punishment whereas in the impugned order deciding the appeal, the issue of proportionality of punishment has not even been touched by the appellate authority and the appeal has been rejected in a mechanical way. Learned counsel for the applicant has specifically referred to judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another Vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs, AIR 1997 SC 3387 wherein the whole issue of proportionality of punishment and the related jurisdiction of Tribunals and High Courts had been discussed. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 27.08.1997, for the purposes of this OA, reads as follows:
In Ranjit Thakur, this Court interfered with the punishment only after coming to the conclusion that the punishment was in outrageous defiance of logic and was shocking. It was also described as perverse and irrational. In other words, this Court felt that, on facts, Wednesbury and CCSU tests were satisfied. In another case, in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [1995) (6) SCC 749], a three Judge Bench said the same thing as follows:
"The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusions on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal it would appropriately mould the relief, either by directing the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare case, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
Similar view was taken in Indian Oil Corporation vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72, that the Court will not intervene unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate.
31. In such a situation, unless the Court/Tribunal opines in its secondary role, that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational according to Wednesbury or CCSU norms, the punishment cannot be quashed. Even then the matter has to be remitted back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration.
2. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record on file.
3. We are satisfied that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal of the applicant has not considered the issue of proportionality of punishment, which has been clearly raised by the applicant in his appeal. In accordance with the views of the Apex Court referred to above, we remit the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the judgment in G. Ganayutham (supra), disposing of the issue of proportionality of punishment, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. OA stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
( Manjulika Gautam ) ( M.L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/