drawn from the imposition of unduly harsh,
severe, unconscionable or shockingly
disproportionate punishment;
(iv) whether the employer has paid or offered to
pay wages ... adequacy of the punishment or
whether it is excessive or too severe. But where
the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,
regard being had to the particular
substitute the penalty only upon recording a finding that
the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct or
that mitigating circumstances exist ... Award, holding that in the absence of
a finding of shockingly disproportionate punishment or legally relevant
mitigating circumstances, interference under Section 11-A is
impermissible
punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is
shockingly disproportionate ... that the jurisdiction to interfere with the
punishment should be exercised only when the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate and that each case
interfere
with the punishment, such power is not unfettered. It can be
exercised only where the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconduct ... given any finding that the
original punishment shocked its conscience, as the punishment
was grossly disproportionate or defied logic/proportionality.
This court finds that such
referred
to “proportionality” in the quantum of punishment but the Court observed
that the punishment was “shockingly” disproportionate to the misconduct
proved ... cases, impose appropriate
punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal
course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would
review
is permissible and interference is available only
when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,
suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely
because in the opinion ... normally
interfere with the punishment imposed by an
authority. However, if the punishment is so
disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of
the Court, interference
review
is permissible and interference is available only
when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,
suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely
because in the opinion ... normally
interfere with the punishment imposed by an
authority. However, if the punishment is so
disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of
the Court, interference
proportionality" in the
quantum of punishment but the Court observed that the punishment was
"shockingly" disproportionate to the misconduct proved ... that too
only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly
or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors
including the nature
principles of natural justice, mala fide,
discriminatory, or where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The
Supreme Court in " B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union ... held that punishment which is shockingly
disproportionate invites judicial interference, wherein it was held that,
11. So far as the doctrine of proportionality is concerned
issue on quantum of
punishment.
38. The question of quantum of punishment as to whether the punishment
is disproportionate to the offence said ... punishment of removal or dismissal from
service a High Court can modify such punishment
merely by saying that it is shockingly
disproportionate. Normally, the punishment
