2014 (12) TMI 751 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement

Union of India Versus P. Gunasekaran

The Supreme Court upheld the respondent's compulsory retirement following disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized limited judicial review in ... Jurisdiction of High Court - Willful falsification of official register - Gross misconduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or not - Contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Departmental proceedings initiated under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Held that:- The High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer - The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal - In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal - The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence - the disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court - the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity - that view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also - Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment - the finding on Charge no. I has attained finality - It is the punishment of dismissal on Charge no. I which was directed to be reconsidered by the Central Administrative Tribunal and which view was endorsed by the High Court - on that basis only, the dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement - Such findings cannot be reopened in the subsequent round of litigation at the instance of the respondent - It was only the punishment aspect that was opened to challenge. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after elaborately discussing the factual as well as the legal position, has come to the conclusion that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not outrageous or shocking to its conscience, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings from stage one and direct reinstatement of the respondent with back wages - The respondent stood dismissed from service as per order dated 10.06.1997 - It was that punishment which was directed to be reconsidered – thus, the judgment of the HC is set aside and the order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is restored – Decided in favour of petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Validity of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.2. Impact of acquittal in a criminal case on departmental proceedings.3. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings:The respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for three charges under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charges included unauthorized absence and falsification of attendance records, impersonation as a Central Excise Executive Officer, and unauthorized passenger checks and threats. The disciplinary inquiry found all charges proved, leading to the respondent's dismissal from service. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) later held that charges 2 and 3 could not stand due to the respondent's acquittal in the criminal case, but upheld the finding on charge 1, remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment.2. Impact of Acquittal in a Criminal Case on Departmental Proceedings:The respondent was acquitted in a criminal case involving similar charges. The CAT and the High Court both acknowledged the acquittal, leading to the dismissal of charges 2 and 3 in the departmental proceedings. However, charge 1, which pertained to unauthorized absence and falsification of records, was considered independently of the criminal proceedings. The High Court initially supported the CAT's view but later interfered with the disciplinary authority's findings on charge 1, leading to the respondent's reinstatement.3. Proportionality of the Punishment Imposed:The disciplinary authority initially imposed dismissal, which was later modified to compulsory retirement following the CAT's direction. The CAT and the disciplinary authority both considered the punishment appropriate given the gravity of the misconduct. The High Court, however, found the punishment disproportionate and directed the respondent's reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the court, which was not the case here.4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India:The Supreme Court highlighted the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226/227. The High Court should not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating evidence or interfering with findings unless there is a violation of natural justice, procedural irregularity, or the findings are wholly arbitrary. The Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own findings and punishment for those of the disciplinary authority and CAT.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the disciplinary authority's order of compulsory retirement, and emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's compulsory retirement was upheld from the original date of dismissal.