Paritosh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Thr. The Secretary Water Resources Department
- Neutral2018 INSC 1078
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When a High Court quashes a disciplinary punishment order on the ground that the quantum of punishment is harsh and disproportionate, but directs the authority to pass appropriate orders only on the quantum of punishment, the competent authority cannot reopen or recommence the disciplinary proceedings itself; the authority is limited to reconsidering and imposing a fresh quantum of punishment based on charges already found proved, without revisiting the merits of the case or the guilt of the employee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11397 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 31218 OF 2018] [DIARY NO. 38935 OF 2018]
PARITOSH KUMAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the appellant on 19.08.1995 leading to the following
punishment :-
“1. Penalty of “censure, the entry whereof will be made in his ACR of the year 1994-95.
2. Stoppage of 3 annual increments with accumulative effect.
3. Recovery of the balance amount after deducting the amount already recovered from Sh. Kumar out of Rs.64,000/-, will be made at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.
Signature Not Verified 4. Nothing will be payable to him of Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.01.19 10:33:30 IST Reason: the period of suspension except maintenance allowance.” 2
4. The penalty proposed in the order dated
30.05.2007 has been found to be harsh by the High
Court in the order dated 15.07.2016 in Writ Petition
(S) No. 784 of 2008. The High Court held as under :-
“………….
(iv) Considering the charges proved, the punishment awarded appears to be harsh and shockingly disproportionate being violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
X X X X X X
7. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 30.05.2007 (Annexure-11/A to the writ application) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No.5) being not legally sustainable, is hereby quashed. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 5) is directed to pass appropriate order on the quantum of punishment within reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/Communication of order.”
5. Thus, the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources
Department, was directed to pass appropriate orders
only “......on the quantum of punishment within
reasonable period”.
3
6. Therefore, it is clear that the High Court did
not permit reopening of the proceedings. The limited
liberty granted to the competent authority was only
to take a fresh decision on the quantum of
punishment, since the punishment already proposed on
30.05.2007 was harsh.
7. We direct the authority concerned to act
accordingly, since there is no liberty for fresh
disciplinary proceedings.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
is/are disposed of.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ HEMANT GUPTA ]
New Delhi;
November 19, 2018.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free