Holding

A disciplinary punishment may be altered by a High Court only if it is found to be grossly or shockingly disproportionate after a full consideration of all relevant factors; otherwise the matter must be remitted to the disciplinary authority.

Summary

The respondent, a member of the Railway Protection Force, was charged under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules, 1987 for five counts of misconduct. An enquiry found all charges proved and the disciplinary authority removed him from service. The respondent challenged the removal in the appellate and revisional authorities without success and then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The Single Judge upheld the findings of fact but substituted the removal with a lesser punishment of stoppage of four increments and reinstatement, without recording reasons; the Division Bench affirmed this order. The Supreme Court held that a High Court may not modify a disciplinary punishment unless it is shown to be grossly or shockingly disproportionate after considering all relevant factors, which was not done here. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter to the Division Bench to reconsider the quantum of punishment, disposing of the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can modify the punishment of removal from service imposed by a disciplinary authority on the ground that it is shockingly disproportionate.
Whether the High Court had considered all relevant facts and recorded reasons before modifying the punishment.

Legislation cited

Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987s. Rule 153

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsremoval from servicemisconductproportionalityjudicial reviewRailway Protection Forcepunishment modificationhigh court jurisdiction

Judgment

DIRECTOR GENERAL R.P.F. AND ORS. A
V.
CH. SAi BABU

JANUARY 29, 2003

[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Service La111:

Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987:

r. 153-Misconduct-Delinquent a member ofRailway Protection Force-
c
Disciplinary proceedings-Removal from service-Writ petition by delinquent
before High Court-Single Judge not disagreeing with the finding that charges
stood proved, but substituting the punishment with stoppage offour increments
with cumulative effect-Writ appeal filed by Department dismissed by Division
Bench of High Court-Held, punishment imposed by disciplinary authority D
should not be disturbed by High Court or Tribunal except in appropriate
cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that punishment imposed is
grossly or shockingly disproportionate-If it is found that punishment imposed
is shockingly disproportionate, the case may be remitted to disciplinary
authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment-In the instant E
case it does not appear that there has been a consideration of all the relevant
facts by the Single Judge-No reasons recorded for modifying the punishment-
Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending for quite some time, case
remitted to Division Bench of High Court to reconsider the case only on
quantum of punishment and dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4622 of
2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 5.6.1999 of the High Court of
A.P. in WA 952 of 1998.
G
Mukul Rohatgi, Addi. Solicitor General, S. Wasim A. Quadri,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants.

R.S. Hegde, Allam Nagabhushanam and Ms. N. Annapoorani for the
Respondent.
729 H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 15th June, 1999 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the respondent
B was given charge sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1987 framing five charges relating to misconduct on his part. After
enquiry report was submitted holding that all the charges levelled against him
were proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings as recorded
by the enquiry officer passed an order of removal of the respondent from
service. He unsuccessfully challenged the said order of his removal from
C service before the appellant and revisional authority. Thereafter he filed writ
petition before the High Court challenging the order of removal from service
on various grounds. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel
for the parties did not find any good ground to disturb the finding of fact as
to the charges which stood proved against the respondent. However, in relation
D to the quantum of punishment, the learned Single Judge held thus:

"It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, and due to
dereliction of duties, punishment of stoppage of increment for three ·
years was already ordered in the year 1984. But th.ere is no
improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. However, the present
E charges, though repetitive are not so serious in nature as to warrant
extreme punishment of removal from service. I want to give one
more chance to him to improve his conduct. Therefore, I direct
stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect by modifying the
impugned order to this effect and he is directed to be reinstated into
service with continuity of service, but he will not be eligible for any
F back wages except for subsistence allowance."

The appellants called in question the validity and correctness of this
order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the order passed
G by the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
{he appellants urged that the learned Single Judge was not right and justified
in modifying the order of punishment, having observed that the respondent
was a habitual offender and due to dereliction of duties, the punishment of
H stoppage of increments for three years was already ordered in 1984 and that
DIRECTOR GENERAL R.P.F. v. CH. SAi BABU 731
there was no improvement in the conduct of the respondent. He alternatively A
·•. submined even ifthe learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment
imposed was grossly or shockingly disproportionate, punishment could not
have been modified but the matter could be remitted to the disciplinary
authority to re-exan1ined the issue in regard to the iinposition of penalty on
the respondent. He further submitted that the Division Bench of the High B
Court did not go into the merits of the contentions and simply endorsed the
y view taken by the learned Single Judge.

Per contra, Shri R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent made
submissions supporting the impugned order. He contended that .even the
finding of fact also was not recorded after a proper enquiry. He also contended C
that the respondent was promoted even after the punishment was imposed on
13th November, 1988 before the framing of the present charges.

As is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge there has been
no consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case including as to the
nature of charged held proved against the respondent to say that penalty of D
• removal from service imposed on the respondent was extreme. Merely because
it was felt that the punishment imposed was extreme was not enough to
disturb or modify the punishment imposed on a delinquent officer. The learned
+ Single Judge has not recorded reasons to say as to how the punishment
imposed on the respondent was shockingly or grossly disproportionate to the E
gravity of the charges held proved against the respondent. It is not that in
every case of imposing a punishment of removal or dismissal from service
a high court can modify such punishment merely saying that it is shockingly
disproportionate. Normally, the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority
should not be disturbed by high court or tribunal except in appropriate cases
that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is F
grossly of shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors
including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed
earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness,
exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the
department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works. G
In the present case we do not find that there has been a consideration
of all the relevant facts and the learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons
in order to modify the punishment imposed. The Division Bench of the High
Court also did not examine the matter in proper perspective but simply
concurred with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Normally in H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) I S.C.R.

A cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate, high courts or tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary
authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. In this case the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1989 and to shorten ·the
litigation we think it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit '
B the writ appeal No. 952 of 1998 to the Division Bench of the High Court to
reconsider the case only on the quantum of punishment imposed on the
respondent having regard to all relevant factors including the facts that the y
respondent was a member of Railway Protection Force and in the light of the.
observations made above. Since the proceedings are pending for quite some
time, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously.
C The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is ordered in the above terms.
No costs.

R.P. Appeal disposed of.

)

.f