Supreme Court Remits Penalty Decision, Emphasizes Authority's Role in Determining Disciplinary Actions.

The SC set aside the HC's directive for the Appellate Authority to impose a specific penalty, emphasizing that determining penalties is the domain of the disciplinary or appellate authority. The SC found the HC's directive unsustainable and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty for the Respondents, taking into account mitigating circumstances and ensuring parity with other employees. The Respondents were permitted to make a representation within 15 days, and the Appellate Authority was instructed to issue a decision within two months. Appeals were allowed with no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Appellate Authority to impose a specific penalty.
2. Whether the Respondents were entitled to the same treatment as other employees who received lesser punishment.

Summary:

Issue 1: High Court's Direction to Appellate Authority
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in directing the Appellate Authority to impose a specific penalty. The Court reiterated that the quantum of punishment is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary or appellate authority. Courts cannot assume this function and decide the nature of the penalty. Judicial review of the punishment is limited and only permissible if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate. Even in such cases, the matter should be remitted back to the disciplinary or appellate authority to decide the appropriate penalty. The High Court's direction to impose a specific penalty was deemed unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Same Treatment as Other Employees
The Supreme Court considered whether the Respondents were entitled to the same treatment as other employees who received lesser punishment. The Court noted that while the charges against both sets of employees were identical, the other employees had accepted the charges and tendered unconditional apologies during the enquiry, unlike the Respondents who denied the charges throughout the enquiry process. The Court highlighted that if there is complete parity in the nature of charges and subsequent conduct, different penalties would be discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. However, in this case, the other employees had accepted the charges only after seeing the outcome of the Respondents' enquiry, which could be a mitigating circumstance for the Respondents. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty, taking into account these mitigating circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's direction mandating a specific penalty and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appropriate penalty for the Respondents, considering the mitigating circumstances and ensuring parity with the other employees. The Respondents were allowed to make a representation to the Appellate Authority within 15 days, and the Appellate Authority was directed to pass appropriate orders within two months. Appeals were allowed with no costs.

---