Unless Court Records That Punishment Awarded In Disciplinary Proceedings Is Disproportionate To Gravity Of Charge, It Can't Substitute Punishment: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that unless the Court records that the punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings is disproportionate to the gravity of charge, which shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court would not get jurisdiction to substitute the punishment.
The Court observed thus in a writ petition filed by the State and its authorities, questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by which penalty of dismissal was substituted by penalty of compulsory retirement.
A Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice C.M. Poonacha held, “… as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal without recording as to whether the punishment of dismissal for proved charge of accepting bribe is disproportionate or whether it shocks the conscience of the Court, could not have substituted the punishment. In other words, unless the Court records that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charge, which shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court would not get jurisdiction to substitute the punishment.”
Additional Government Advocate (AGA) M. Rajkumar appeared for the petitioners while Advocates N.S. Sriraj Gowda and Vandana N. appeared for the respondent.
Brief Facts -
The respondent was working as a Typist in the office of Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax. Articles of charge was issued against one Commercial Tax Officer as well as against the respondent alleging demand and acceptance of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 300/- respectively from the complainant and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty which would be unbecoming of a Government servant. It was alleged that they committed misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) read with Rule 16 of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966. After detailed enquiry, the charges against the respondent as well as another were held proved.
The State Government issued second show-cause notice enclosing enquiry report as well as recommendation of Upa Lokayukta. The Government, by its order, imposed punishment of dismissal of respondent in exercise of its power under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 (CCA Rules). Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the respondent’s application and substituted penalty of dismissal by penalty of compulsory retirement. Being aggrieved, the State approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of proportionaility of punishment in CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS v/s T.T.MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has observed that proportionality or substitution of punishment would come into play, if the Court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court.”
The Court said that the Tribunal has not found and come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved against the respondent in the departmental enquiry. It added that the Tribunal having observed that demanding and receiving bribe is a serious social morality and it needs to dealt with firmly, could not have substituted the punishment of dismissal with that of compulsory retirement.
“For the reasons recorded above, we have no other option but to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Cause Title- State of Karnataka & Ors. v. H.S. Kanthi
