The Union of India through Home Secretary, v. No. 911120653 Hawaldar/General Duty Datta Singh @ Dhatta Singh
Case brief
What is this about?
Keywords: compulsory retirement; unauthorised absence; quantum of punishment; proportionality doctrine; Wednesbury test; secondary role of courts; Article 226 judicial review of departmental penalties; CRPF departmental proceeding; charge-sheet 17.09.2011; remand to disciplinary authority; lesser penalty; monetary and service benefits; LPA against Single Judge remand; Jarnail Singh (1993) 1 SCC 47; Ranjit Thakur (1987) 4 SCC 611; G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463; Indian Oil Arora (1997) 3 SCC 72; Rathin Ghosh (2021) 16 SCC 695. Useful for questions on: scope of judicial interference with punishment awarded in departmental proceedings; whether an Article 226 court may lessen punishment itself or remand for lesser penalty; disproportionality of compulsory retirement for short unauthorised absences.
What did the court decide?
None to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed and the learned Single Judge's remand to the disciplinary authority for considering lesser punishment (with monetary and service benefits) stands. Interlocutory applications disposed of.