Udaibir Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. - (Central Administrative Tribunal) (01 Aug 2018)
Court is not a Court of appeal to go into question of imposition of punishment
Present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the Applicant claiming to quash and set aside the show cause notice, order of punishment of censure and order of appellate authority with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances. The main issue involved in present case is whether the punishment order dated 7th May, 2011 imposing penalty of 'censure' upon the Applicant is a speaking one or not
The order contains all the details of the issue, clear findings and a reasoned order on basis of which the department has imposed the penalty of censure. As such, present Tribunal does not find any legal infirmity in the punishment order. No doubt, being a SHO of a sensitive Police Station, it was his duty to execute/implement or ensure proper M/Cycle patrolling. It was also his paramount duty to brief/supervise the staff to maintain the M/cycle properly. The applicant should have checked the M/Cycle alongwith the required accessories on regular basis but he left the maintenance as the responsibility of the staff.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to imposition of penalty has held in case of State of U.P. Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla and another that, It is settled law that the court is not a court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider what would be nature of punishment to be imposed on a government servant based upon the misconduct proved against him. Its proportionality also cannot be gone into by the court. It is settled law that even one of the charges, if held proved and sufficient for imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority, the court would be loath to interfere with that part of the order.
Thus, in the absence of any procedural illegality and irregularity, in the conduct of DE, no ground to interfere with the impugned enquiry proceedings and orders is made out as found, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others. With regard to the plea made by the Applicant that, he has been punished while others have not been punished for the same misdemeanor, the same cannot be a ground to allow present OA.
The proceedings have been carried out as per rules and the punishment has been given accordingly. There is no defect in the actions carried out in the disciplinary proceedings and the Applicant has been given penalty after following all due procedures and affording an opportunity of being heard. The Applicant has only been given penalty of 'censure' which is, in fact, one of the lowest penalties which could have been given in the circumstances. Further, the O.A. has been examined in terms of decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court and the ratio laid down in the said judgments. Accordingly, application dismissed.
Relevant : Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others MANU/SC/1498/2009 : (2009) 15 SCC 620, State of U.P. Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla
Tags : PUNISHMENT CENSURE VALIDITY