CASE TITLE:
Union of India & Ors Vs. Subrata Nath.
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli.
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Union of India &Ors.
Respondent: Subrata Nath.
SUBJECT
The present case highlights that even though the High Court has strong authority and power in their hands, those powers are still restricted under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Constitution of India
Article 226 – Power of High Court to issue writs
BRIEF FACTS
- The respondent joined the Central Industrial Security Force as a Constable and he was responsible for ‘C’ shift duty from 7 November 2007 to 8 November 2007 at Alif Nagar Scrap Yard situated in the Garden Reach area of the Kolkata Port.
- On 8 November 2007, a Tata-407 truck was intercepted by the local police which was loaded with approximately 800kg of copper wires outside the port premises. The officers came to know that the copper wires had been removed from the Kolkata Port Trust area and hence informed the CISF regarding the same.
- Thereby, it was revealed that the copper wires had been removed from the scrap yard of Alif Nagar Kolkata Port. This incident was alleged to have occurred when the respondent was on duty. Immediately a charge sheet was issued against him and he was placed on suspension.
- An investigation officer (hereinafter to be referred as I.O.) was appointed and he conducted an inquiry in respect to the above charges.
- Whereas eight prosecution witnesses were examined by the I.O., the respondent did not produce any witness in his defence. Examining the evidence and the defence submitted by the defence, the I.O. held that both the charges framed against the respondent were duly proved.
- The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a Show Cause Notice to the respondent in relation to the inquiry done by the I.O. The respondent submitted a representation for the same but it was rejected by the Commandant of that authority.
- It was proved by the prosecution witnesses that the respondent was found to be alert at the duty post by nine different checking officers who had noticed him in the intervening night on 7th/8th November 2007. Despite being present in that spot, the respondent did not report the criminal activities in his duty area.
- Therefore, the respondent submitted a plea that the incident had occurred at 1530 hours on 8 November 2007 and the hence indicated that the incident has not taken place during his duty hours. The same was mentioned in the F.I.R. But the disciplinary authority rejected the plea.
- The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service by considering all the above findings and exercising the powers conferred under Rule 32 read with Schedule-I and Rule 32 (1) of the Central Security Force Rules.
- Aggrieved by the above order, the respondent submitted an appeal which was also dismissed.
- Later on, the respondent applied for a Revision Petition which was also dismissed.
- Dissatisfied by all the orders passed by the above mentioned authorities, a writ petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court of Calcutta which was also disposed of by a Single Judge. The Court observed that one of the vital documents of the inquiry, i.e., the Beat Book which recorded the time when the respondent has taken the charge from his reliever and the list of the items which were handed over charge to his successor and was available at the spot, was needed to be examined. Even the authorities have failed to preserve the relevant records pertaining to this case and hence, on this ground, the Court ordered for compulsory retirement from the service along with all the consequential benefits.
- The above-mentioned order was challenged by the appellant (i.e Union of India) in two sets of appeals. The Division Bench quashed both the punishment of dismissal and compulsory retirement given to the respondent and thereby directed the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh order or punishment that would commensurate the negligence and dereliction of duty committed by the respondent. Hence, both the appeals were disposed of.
- Questioning the above given judgement order, the appellant i.e the Union of India has filed the present appeal.
QUESTIONS RAISED
- Whether the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench has interfered with the punishment imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority, upheld by the Appellate Authority and also by the Revisional Authority?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER
- The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the High Court is unsustainable because it has acted like an Appellate Authority by directing reinstatement of the respondent. This action went contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others (1996 AIR 484).
- The learned counsel also stated that there was no good reason for the learned Single Judge to convert the punishment of dismissal from service (imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority) to compulsory retirement as the charges against the respondent had been proven in a properly conducted departmental inquiry wherein the respondent was also given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
- The petitioner’s counsel referred to the case of State of Orissa and others v. BidyabhushanMohaptra (1963 AIR 779) and the High Court does not have the power to review the punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Concluding the arguments, the petitioner’s counsel relied upon the judgement cited in Central Industrial Security Force and others v. Abrar Ali [(2017) 4 SCC 507] and urged that the Court should consider the past conduct of the respondent while awarding any penalty, subject to the condition that the same is made a part of a separate charge as was done in the above-mentioned case.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The respondent counsel submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench was not justified and that the order given by the learned Single Judge should be restored so that the respondent can claim his retirement benefits.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
- The Court referred to Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu [(2008) 5 SCC 569] and cited the several precedents on the Doctrine of Proportionality which was used by the Disciplinary Authority to order a punishment.
- The Court broadly highlighted the wide parameters within which the High Court is ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [13 (2015) 2 SCC 610].
- The Court also stated that the High Court cannot direct reconsideration of the punishment imposed if the order of dismissal was based on the findings that establish the prima facie guilt of heavy ignorance of duties by the respondent and thereby cited the order passed by thus Court in State of Orissa and others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (AIR 1963 SC 779).
- In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618] this Court has mentioned that the High Court has no power to judicially review any such order passed by the Disciplinary Authority wherein the gravity of the misdemeanour has been established, the inquiry which has been conducted were found consistent with the prescribed rules and reasonable opportunity contemplated under the rules were also given to that employee.
- The Supreme Court hence laid down that in the present case, the High Court should not have interfered with the findings of the fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the Charge-1 levelled against the respondent for negligence of his duty was duly proven.
- Regarding Charge-II, the Disciplinary Authority stated the statement of SI/Min A.K. Dua who was working as incharge of the Document Section of the Unit and the copies of the service documents related to the respondent which clearly stated that he has not reformed himself even after being awarded with eight punishments over a period of thirteen years of service for various delinquencies.
- The Court stated that the learned Single Judge overturned the order of dismissal as well as ignored the fact that Beat Book was not the only piece of document produced by the I.O.
- It was also held that the allegation of connivance in the theft levelled against the respondent was presumptive and there was not much evidence to conclude that the alleged incident occurred during the duty period of the respondent alone.
- The Court quashed the impugned judgement passed by the High Court of Calcutta and restored the conclusion arrived by the Disciplinary Authority which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and endorsed by the Revisional Authority thereby allowing both the appeals preferred by the Union of India and dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, the Supreme Court upheld the restricted authority of the High Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India. This is a very important provision to restrict the High Court from using its power arbitrarily. In the present case we saw how the High Court of Calcutta rectified the order passed by the lower authorities’ just on documentary grounds. This was very much disrespectful and denoted a miscarriage of justice which was rectified by the Supreme Court of India.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
