Writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of application seeking setting aside reinstatement order with reduced pay scale. Court dismissed petition relying on Supreme Court principles limiting judicial review in punishment cases.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2016
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.29192 of 2014
N.Kothandapani ... Petitioner
Vs 1. The Union of India rep.by The General Manager Southern Railway, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 2. The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager Chennai Division, Southern Railway NGO Annexe, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Chennai Division, Southern Railway NGO Annexe, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 5. The Chief Vigilance Officer Southern Railway, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 6. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench Chennai 600 104. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the sixth respondent in O.A.No.355 of 2011 confirming the order dated 31.01.2011 in No.P
(A)/86/2008/487 of the second respondent and the order dated 19.01.2010 of the third respondent herein in M/CON/C/1445; to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar for
RR1 to 5
The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the sixth respondent in O.A.No.355 of 2011 confirming the order dated 31.01.2011 in No.P (A)/86/2008/487 of the second respondent and the order dated 19.01.2010 of the third respondent herein in M/CON/C/1445; to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.
(i) While the petitioner was working as Ticket Collector in Chennai Central, Southern Railways, he was issued with the charge memo for the following reasons:
(a) that he had instigated one Vijayakumar not to co-operate with the vigilance in the check,
(b) that he abused using un-parliamentary words and attempted to assault the Head Constable, who was participating as independent witness in the Vigilance Team in Train No.2656 on 26.10.2006 and
(c) that the petitioner violated Rule 3.1 (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and Section 146 of the Railways Act, 1989.
(ii) Enquiry proceedings were initiated and the fourth respondent vide order dated 24.09.2008 passed
an order recommending punishment of compulsory retirement from service and 2/3 rd of pension and gratuity to be paid as per rules to the petitioner and two others.
(iii) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal. In the meantime, in the criminal case filed, the petitioner was acquitted. Thereafter, the third respondent vide order dated 19.01.2010 passed an order finding the petitioner guilty of charge No.2 alone and modified the earlier order of punishment ordering compulsory retirement into one of reinstatement into service, however, with reduction to the time scale of Rs.5,200-20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- for a period of 72 months with recurring effect fixing the Basic Pay at Rs.8,560/- with Grade Pay at Rs.2,400/-. Further the intervening period from the date of effecting compulsory retirement to the date of restoration will be treated as neither duty nor leave.
(iv) As against the same, the petitioner filed revision petition and the revisional authority confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Being dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority, warranting no interference in this writ petition.
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4 Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges,indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
reason to interfere with the same. It also held that considering the very serious charges levelled against the respondent therein, the penalty imposed was not shockingly disproportionate.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vj2
To 1. The General Manager Union of India Southern Railway, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 2. The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager Chennai Division, Southern Railway NGO Annexe, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Chennai Division, Southern Railway NGO Annexe, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 5. The Chief Vigilance Officer Southern Railway, Park Town Chennai 600 003. 6. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench Chennai 600 104. +1cc to Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate, S.R.No.24124 W.P.No.29192 of 2014 NR(CO) CA(13/05/2016)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of an application challenging a reinstatement order with reduced pay scale imposed in departmental proceedi
Whether the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct warranting judicial review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. S.VasanthiExplained¶38
(2014) 9 SCC 315 · Who else cites this
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and anotherExplained¶30
(2013) 12 SCC 372 · Who else cites this
N.Kothandapani
Union of India rep.by The General Manager Southern Railway
Huluvadi G. Ramesh
K. Ravichandra Baabu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
