Union Of India & Ors vs J. Ahmed on 7 March, 1979
18. Here, we find some substance in the version made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that one or two instances committed by the applicant, may be there has been some negligence on the part of the applicant in that regard, cannot constitute grave misconduct. The learned Counsel for the applicant repeatedly contended that the punishment awarded to the applicant is too high and disproportionate to the guilt of the applicant and it should be suitably modified. We also find support from the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. J. Ahmed referred to by the learned Counsel for the applicant wherein it was held by their Lordships that failure to attain highest standards of administrative abilities alone would not constitute misconduct. Since the applicant is found to be in fault for adopting a negligent view in the matter, whereby two patients suffered so heavily, he is bound to be given punishment. But, we also feel that the punishment awarded to the applicant for having committed the error in treating the two patients is disproportionate to his guilt. We are, therefore, of the view that the applicant deserves a lesser punishment which is in commensurate to his guilt like that of Compulsory Retirement from service, which was earlier proposed by the General Manager, S.C. Railway in the case of the applicant, instead of dismissal from service.