“Punishment Needs To Be In Proportion To The Wrong Done” | Rajasthan High Court Exercises Judicial Review, Reinstates Petitioner

“Punishment Needs To Be In Proportion To The Wrong Done” | Rajasthan High Court Exercises Judicial Review, Reinstates Petitioner

Recently, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur by applying the doctrine of proportionality as propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri (2009) 15 SCC 620, allowed the writ petition partly by reviewing the punishment order passed by the respondents by which they have compulsorily retired the petitioner who was working as Senior Manager of Union Bank. The Hon’ble court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service however, no back wages are to paid.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

the petitioner was appointed as clerical staff in the month of December 1989 and thrice she was promoted on the higher posts i.e. on the post of JMG Scale-I, MMG Scale-2 and MMG Scale-3 (Senior Manager). And during her tenure of twenty-five years of service, the petitioner was transferred to different Branches of the Bank on several occasions and she obeyed the commands and the order and joined the transferred places of her posting. Her service career in this period remained unblemished and no Departmental or Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against her and no penalty of any kind was imposed upon her.

Petitioner was transferred on 19.04.2014 to join at Alwar Branch as Senior Manager and she did not join at the transferred place of posting till 01.11.2014 and she remained absent for about six months i.e. w.e.f. 30.4.2014 to 01.11.2014. Though the petitioner submitted several representations to reconsider her case and for cancellation of her transfer at Alwar Branch on account of her family and medical circumstances, but her request was not accepted by the respondent Bank and repeatedly she was directed to join at Alwar branch and when she failed to join, the respondents issued charge-sheet for her such conduct of unauthorised absence and after holding enquiry, the punishment of compulsory retirement was given to her.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

Learned counsel for the petitioner taken the plea of violation of Principles of Natural Justice, also stated that impugned order was passed in a haste manner without giving due consideration to the situation of the petitioner. It was also submitted that petitioner is suffering with Arthritis and other medical conditions. Reliance was also placed on (i) B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 (ii) Surya Prakash Gothwal v. State of Rajasthan 1980 W.L.N. 542 (iii) State of Rajasthan v. Ganpat Ram 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) (UC) 154

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

Learned counsel for respondent submitted that petitioner have the alternative remedy of filing a review in accordance with the Regulations of the Bank and also stated that no violation of principals of natural justice has been done.

HON’BLE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has essentially observed that prima facie there is no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner has been provided ample amount of time to file her reply to charge sheet etc.

Thereafter, the Hon’ble court framed one question for consideration i.e. Whether for absence of six months, the punishment of “compulsory retirement” is proper or disproportionate?” and to answer this, his lordship has gone through the whole service career of the petitioner. It was further observed that “This court is conscious enough about the scope of interference with the decision of Disciplinary Authority. The scope of interference is very narrow and limited in such like matters, but the High Court has powers of moulding the relief in case where the punishment/penalty imposed shocks the judicial conscience.” And then quoted para 12 of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), which is as below –

““12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held that proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have never reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.”

Further, on the punishment awarded to petitioner, it was observed that

“It is settled proposition of law that an employee is bound to carry on the order of transfer and he /she is duty bound to join at the transferred place of posting. Such an employee has no right to remain absent without leave. Such conduct of remaining absent without leave, shall not be tolerated and such person should suffer the punishment. But it is not necessary to be so harsh as to throw him /her out of service.”

“The principles of proportionality of punishment vis-avis misconduct have been recognised by the Courts of various European countries as well as British Courts. It has time and again been held that if the punishment imposed on an employee is out of proportion, the Court has power to interfere with the same. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services (1984) 3 All. E.R. 935, it has been held:

“Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality;, the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. This is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of ‘proportionality’ which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community.”

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also recognised the theory of proportionality of punishment when they said that “an order imposing punishment, which is shockingly disproportionate or is highly excessive having regard to the gravity of misconduct, is liable to be declared as arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

(10.8) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri (2009) 15 SCC 620, has dealt with the doctrine of proportionality and the limited scope of High Court under judicial review in paras 19, 20, 21 and 22”

In view of the above authorities cited and Hon’ble court’s observation about the whole service career, it was found that the punishment is not proportionate to the wrong done and consequently impugned order was quashed with the direction to reinstate the petitioner in service.

Case Title:-  Smt. Shashi Bala Meena Vs. Punjab National Bank & ors

Case no. :-   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7612/2015

Order date :- 24.05.2023