Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)Ranjit Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1987
Article 3 of the charge cannot form part of the charge memo
for, the employee was already punished previously for the proven
misconduct. The fact that he has suffered punishment in the past
will have some bearing while finalizing the appropriate punishment
to be imposed for the proven misconduct this time around. But,
however, the fact that previously he has suffered punishments that
too 4 minor punishments in a service spanning over 28 years
cannot by itself become misconduct. After all no person can be
penalized for the same misconduct twice. Obviously, the
disciplinary authority has not realized the distinction between
looking into the past history of punishments undergone by an
employee while considering the quantum of punishment that
should be handed down this time around and instead treated the
past misconduct as again an element of misconduct this time also.
Similarly, so far as item No.2 is concerned, the non-cooperation
extended by a patient to undergo medical examination by a Doctor
perhaps, is difficult to be viewed as a serious misconduct. At best,
that can be treated as not a good conduct. For a conduct to
become misconduct there should be something more than mere
absence of good conduct. Further, the Doctrine of proportionality
propounded by Lord Diplock has been successfully introduced to
our system by the Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachalliah in the
judgment rendered in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India and
others , wherein it is now held that the punishment must be
proportionate and should match the quantum of misconduct and
should also match the status of the employee. The status of the
employee in this case is a head constable and the quantum of
misconduct held established is relevantly on a lesser scale which,
does not warrant imposition of punishment of removal from
service. When we made our views known in this regard, on
23.07.2015, Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor
General has taken time to have another round of consultation with
the officers of CISF. Today, learned counsel deputizing for Sri
Narayana Reddy has placed before us a communication received by
him from the Inspector General, CISF, Southern State Head
Quarters at Chennai, wherein it has been informed that the
Directorate of CISF has examined the matter and then it has been
decided by the competent authority to impose a lesser punishment
upon the respondent on humanitarian grounds if this Court remits
the matter back for consideration afresh.
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1