Punishment of removal of service on an alleged demand of a meagre amount is contrary to Doctrine of Proportionality.

It is now well settled that it is open to the Court, in all
circumstances, to consider whether the punishment imposed on the
delinquent workman or officer, as the case may be, is commensurate
with the Articles of Charge levelled against him. There is a deluge

of decisions on this question and we do not propose to travel
beyond Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 in which
this Court had held that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as
to the severity or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed, it
can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the
Disciplinary Authority concerned. In that case, the punishment that
had been imposed was the deduction of 10% from the pension for a
period of one year. The High Court had set aside that order. In
those premises, this Court did not think it expedient to remand the
matter back to the Disciplinary Authority and instead approved the
decision of the High Court.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 48-49 OF 2014
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.20506-20507 of 2012]
Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal
.....Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
.....Respondents
JUDGMENT
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.1
Dated;3-1-2014

1.
Leave granted.
These Appeals assail the Judgment dated
11.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38190 of 2004 as well as
the subsequent Order dated 28.3.2012 by which a Review
Application in respect of the former was dismissed.
2.
The Division Bench was confronted with the dismissal from service
of the Appellant Dr. Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal against whom three
Articles of Charge had been framed.
Article-I was that he
demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.26/- from Shri Pyare Ram,
Khalasi for issuing in his favour a Fit Certificate. Article-II, in

similar vein was that the Appellant demanded and accepted a sum of
Rs.34/- from Shri Nandlal, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing him a
Fit Certificate. Article-III was
that the Appellant had demanded
and accepted Rs.18/- from Shri Balroop, Semi-skilled Revetter for
issuing of Fit Certificate.
The Inquiry Officer, after duly perusing
the entire evidence, returned a finding that Charges 1 and 3 had
been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the
response of the Appellant, by its Order dated 22.1.1991 imposed the
penalty of removal of the Appellant from service.
3.
A Revision came to be filed which appears to have attracted the
gravamen of challenge before the Division Bench. After considering
the manner in which the Revision was heard and decided, the
Division Bench in the impugned Order, has come to the conclusion
that the President had decided the Revision in accordance with law.
4.
In these proceedings, learned counsel for the Appellant has confined
his arguments to the ground – “whether the punishment of removal
of service of the petitioner on the alleged demand of meagre amount
of Rs.18-45 is contrary to the doctrine of proportionality”.
5.
It is now well settled that it is open to the Court, in all
circumstances, to consider whether the punishment imposed on the
delinquent workman or officer, as the case may be, is commensurate
with the Articles of Charge levelled against him. There is a deluge

of decisions on this question and we do not propose to travel
beyond Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 in which
this Court had held that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as
to the severity or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed, it
can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the
Disciplinary Authority concerned. In that case, the punishment that
had been imposed was the deduction of 10% from the pension for a
period of one year. The High Court had set aside that order. In
those premises, this Court did not think it expedient to remand the
matter back to the Disciplinary Authority and instead approved the
decision of the High Court.
6.
The Appellant before us is presently 75 years of age. At the time
when the Articles of Charge had been served upon him, he had
already given the best part of his life to the service of the
Respondent-Indian Railways. It has been contended before us that
the three charges that have been sustained against the Appellant
reflected only the tip of the iceberg; however, there is no material on
record to substantiate this argument of Respondents. In the present
case, the Appellant has served the Respondents for a period of
twenty three years and removal from service for the two charges
levelled against him shocks our judicial conscience. Part III of The
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 contains the

penalties that can be imposed against a Railway servant, both Minor
Penalties as well as Major Penalties. We have already noted that it
has not been established that the Appellant had, as a matter of habit
or on a wide scale, made illegal demands from Railway servants
desirous of obtaining a Fit Certificate. However, since two of the
three charges have been proved, we are of the considered opinion
that the imposition of compulsory retirement i.e. Penalty 6(vii)
would have better and more appropriately met the ends of justice.
While this would have instilled sufficient degree of fear in the mind
of the employees, it would also not have set at naught several years
of service which the Appellant had already given to the Respondent-
Indian Railways. We think that deprivation of retiral benefits in
addition to loss of service is entirely incommensurate with the
charge of the Appellant having taken very small sums of money for
the issuance of Fit Certificate to other Railway employees.
7.
It is in these premises that the Appeals are accepted and the
impugned Order dated 11.10.2010 is set aside. The Appellant shall
be deemed to have compulsorily retired under Part-III Penalty 6(vii)
of the aforementioned Railway Rules with effect from 22.1.1991. If
he is entitled to retiral or other benefits on the said date, the
Respondents shall make necessary payment within three months
from today. This decision is restricted to the facts of the present

case.
............................................J.
[T.S. THAKUR]
............................................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
New Delhi
January 3, 2014.

Print Page