The appellant appealed against the dismissal from service. The Supreme Court held that since there were no procedural lapses and the enquiry findings were evidence-based, the quantum of punishment could not be interfered with.
The appeal is dismissed with no ground worthy for admission found.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 850 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 23, 2010
Rajbir Singh Tomar
…Appellant
Versus
Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited
…Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 22.3.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5615 of 1989, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. Learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the charges against the petitioner-appellant in the disciplinary proceedings after holding inquiry stood proved resulting his dismissal from service. Even the intra-departmental appeal preferred by him also failed. The learned Single Judge further observed that this Court cannot treat itself as a Court of appeal and
LPA No. 850 of 2010 (O&M)
2
the scope of enquiry before this Court cannot traverse beyond finding whether there had been gross injustice meted out to the petitionerappellant by not following the principles of natural justice.
We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that once no procedural lapse has been pointed out, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence and the charges have been established, then there cannot be any room for this Court to interfere in the order of dismissal. It is well settled that if the Enquiry Officer, Punishing Authority or the Appellate Authority has proceeded on the basis of wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant consideration or in violation of principles of natural justice then the Courts are empowered to interfere with the quantum of punishment. It has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that this Court is not a Court of Appeal over and above the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has not been able to point out either any violation of the principles of natural justice nor any statutory rules warranting a conclusion that the petitioner-appellant has not been treated fairly. Once the findings of fact are well based and the procedural requirements contemplated by the Rules have been complied with then the quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with, as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise one principle of law which is now well settled is that the Courts ordinarily do not enjoy jurisdiction to alter the quantum of punishment inflicted by the employer on its employee. In that regard
LPA No. 850 of 2010 (O&M)
3
reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of U.P. v. Jaikaran Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 228; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Pal, (2006) 8 SCC 108; Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Ram Kishan Arora, (2007) 4 SCC 627; and Messrs Amrit Vanaspati Company Limited v. Khem Chand, (2006) 6 SCC 325 . The principle laid down in the aforementioned judgments is that ordinarily the Courts do not substitute the quantum of punishment unless it is found that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct or for any other sufficient reason. The instant case does not fall in such a category.
For the reasons aforementioned, we find no ground worthy for admission of the instant appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL) July 23, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on an employee when the findings of the enquiry officer are based on evidence and no procedural lapses are evident.
Whether the dismissal of the employee from service constitutes gross injustice warranting interference by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. v. Jaikaran Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 228Relied on¶20
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Pal, (2006) 8 SCC 108Relied on¶20
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605Relied on¶20
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Ram Kishan Arora, (2007) 4 SCC 627Relied on¶20
Messrs Amrit Vanaspati Company Limited v. Khem Chand, (2006) 6 SCC 325Relied on¶20
Rajbir Singh Tomar
Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited
M.M. KUMAR
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
