Courts Can't Substitute View Of Departmental Authorities In Matter Of Punishment: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court noted that the Tribunal had remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to consider the imposition of a lighter punishment.
Allahabad High Court set aside the Order of the CAT, which had directed the reconsideration of the punishment of dismissal imposed on a Commissioner, citing 30 years of service. The Court held that adjudicatory forums cannot substitute the view of the departmental authorities in the matter of punishment.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to consider imposition of a lighter punishment, other than dismissal or removal, considering the fact that the employee had rendered service of 30 years, at the time of his dismissal and then pass appropriate orders.
A Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I remarked, “While carrying out such an exercise, the Tribunal was impressed by the length of service rendered by the respondent to the extent of thirty years and that being so, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service was held to be shocking to the conscious of the Tribunal even if there was a mis-representation at the initial stage regarding eligiblity.”
Advocate Anuj Singh appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Sudhanshu Srivastava represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Relying on judgments of the Apex Court, where the punishment was found to be shockingly disproportionate, the CAT had set aside the order of dismissal and remitted the case back to the departmental authorities for a fresh order imposing a punishment other than dismissal/removal.
A circular/Office Memorandum was brought to the Court's attention, which stipulated that in cases where the circular was applicable, the employee should be removed or dismissed from service.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court stated that the CAT took the “due pain” to delve into the procedural aspects of the matter, noting that the prescribed procedure had been followed, and both oral and documentary evidence had been rightly appreciated by the competent authority. It also noted that CAT had acknowledged the thorough consideration given to the submissions in the appeal by the Appellate Authority.
However, the Court's decision to intervene was based on the proportionality of the punishment. It stated that CAT was "impressed" by the employee's long service of thirty years, and held that the punishment of dismissal from service was "shocking to the conscious", even in light of a misrepresentation regarding eligibility at the initial stage of his employment.
“The limitations of Courts of Law to substitute its view have consistently been spelt out by the Apex Court so that there is no invasion of jurisdiction upon the domain of administrative authorities to take independent decisions, therefore, the submission putforth before us in the light of judgments, noted above, in our humble consideration, carries weight and the submission made deserves acceptance,” the Lucknow Bench remarked.
The Court held, “Except having a sympathy for the legal representatives of the deceased employee, this Court, on the merits of the case, is convinced that the judgment impugned herein is unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We accordingly allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2018 passed in O.A. No. 224 of 2010, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, with all consequences upon the execution proceedings stated to be pending.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Union Of India & Ors. v. Kamlesh Kumar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:23735-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Dipak Seth and Anuj Singh
Respondents: Advocates Praveen Kumar, Sudhanshu Srivastava and Saroj Kumar Verma