194. Knowledge Spectrum – Discipline – QUANTUM OF PENALTY
344. Such discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the Government to prosecute such Government servants."
[Although the above OM has not been modified, its contents need to be understood in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/01/2004 [2004 AIR 1469, 2004(1 )SCR360 , 2004(2
SCC105 , 2004(1 )SCALE285 , 2004(1 )JT88 ] wherein dismissal of an IPS officer with 27 years of service without inquiry was upheld as the officer was guilty of producing a false caste certificate at the time of recruitment. It must also be noted that in the above case, the officer was provided an opportunity of countering the allegation during the inquiry regarding the veracity of the certificate produced by him]
Another area relating to quantum of penalty is as under:
By necessary implication, penalty of Recovery from pay mentioned in Rule 11(iii) can be imposed only in such cases where the pecuniary loss has been caused and the same is attributable to the charged officer.
345. What guidelines are available to the Disciplinary Authority in deciding the quantum of penalty?
The following guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court penalty in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal and Anr. [AIR 2003 SC 1462, JT 2003 (2) SC 27, (2003) 3 SCC 605, [2003] 1 SCR 1019,1 for the Tribunals and the High Court is relevant for the Disciplinary Authorities in deciding the quantum of
"11. It needs to be emphasized that the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court's order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taken to the controversy of question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 LCR 120. A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. ....... It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal.
12. The appeal is allowed."
Post a Comment