Holding

The compulsory retirement was vitiated as grossly disproportionate and was set aside.

Summary

The appellant, a Head Clerk with 31 years of commendable service in the Northern Railways, supplied an "absentee" statement to a co‑worker who was litigating against the Railways. The Railway disciplinary authority treated this act as a serious misconduct, held the appellant guilty of leaking official documents, and imposed compulsory retirement under Rules 31(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the retirement, holding that judicial review does not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the retirement was grossly disproportionate, whether the information disclosed was confidential, and whether the disciplinary authority had abused its discretion. Finding that the absentee statement was neither confidential nor privileged and that the punishment was grossly excessive and not in public interest, the Court set aside the compulsory retirement, restoring the appellant's service tenure and retirement benefits.

Issues considered

Whether compulsory retirement for supplying a non‑confidential absentee statement is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct.
Whether the disciplinary authority abused its discretion in imposing retirement without a public‑interest justification.
Whether judicial review can intervene in the quantum of punishment in service disciplinary cases.
Whether the absentee statement constituted confidential or privileged information.

Subjects

compulsory retirementdisproportionate punishmentjudicial reviewservice lawrailway disciplinary actionabuse of discretionproportionality

Judgment

A PRITAM SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2004

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Service Law:

Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966: Rules 31 (i), (ii) & (iii).
c Retirement-Compulsory retirement-Punishment of-Judicial review-
Discretionary power of disciplinary authority-Employee supplied absentee
statement to a coworker in good faith and bona fide-Such a statement
neither confidential nor privileged information-This act ofthe employee was
viewed as serious misconduct and leakage ofofficial information-Therefore,
D the said employee was compulsorily retired from service-High Court and
Tribunal affirmed the said punishment on the ground that the power of
judicial review did not permit interference with the quantum ofpunishment-
Correctness of-Held: This is a glaring example of abuse of discretionary
power of the disciplinary authority-This is a fit case where the High Court
and the Tribunal should have held that the punishment imposed was vitiated
E
on account of the disproportionality-Hence, punishment of compulsory
retirement set aside.

Retirement-Compulsory retirement-Punishment of-Judicial review--
Employee was compulsorily retired from service-Action was not initiated in
F public interest-It was also not a case of doubtful integrity-Held: Under
these circumstances, order of compulsory retirement set aside.

The appellant was working as a Head Clerk in the Railways. During
his service of 31 years the appellant's work and conduct had been highly
commended. The appellant had given an "absentee" statement to one of
G his coworkers. This "absentee" statement was used by the said coworker
in his petition filed against the Railways challenging the disciplinary
action initiated against him. This act on the part of the appellant was
viewed as a misconduct and leakage of official information. An enquiry
was held against the appellant pursuant to which the appellant was held
H guilty of leaking official documents. On the basis of the enquiry report
608
PRITAM SINGH v. U.O.l. 609

and the statement of the appellant, who admitted his guilt, respondent A
No. 3 passed an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant as he
had violated Rules 31 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railways Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1966.

The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court affirmed
the said punishment on the ground that the power of judicial review did B
not permit interference with the quantum of punishment unless the
punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate. Hence the appeal.

The following question arose before the Court:

Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon c
the appellant was vitiated as being highly disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct of supplying absentee statement to one of the employees?

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. It is true that the appellant has supplied a document D
containing information regarding the absentee details of a coworker
which is neither confidential nor privileged information nor the appellant
was under any official communication prohibiting him to supply the
same. It was a right of the e·mployee concerned to obtain the information
from the office. [614-G) E
1.2. The appellant himself has admitted that he had issued the
absentee details to a coworker in good faith and bona fide. Just because
an employee is facing litigation, he does not lose his right to get the
information to which he has a right, so long as the same is not barred.
Moreover, furnishing of such information has not done or caused F
any damage to the office except causing some inconvenient
situation to the Railways in contesting the case of an employee and the
Railway Administration was confronted with the said absentee statement,
which prompted the Railways to initiate action against the appellant.
[615-B-C)
G
2. The instant case is a glaring example of abuse of discretionary
power of the Disciplinary Authority as the punishment of compulsory
retirement imposed on the appellant, who has put in 31 years of long
service, only because he has supplied the absentee details to one of the
employees, which was neither confidential nor a privileged document. In H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A any event, the appellant bona fide believed that he was right in furnishing
the details, which the employee had the right to ask for. This is a fit case
where the High Court and the Tribunal should have held that the
punishment imposed is vitiated on account of the disproportionality.
[615-H; 616-A-B]

B 3. In the instant case, no material on record was placed before the
disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority, Tribunal
and before the High Court to reasonably form an opinion that the
compulsory retirement was in public interest. The case on hand is also
not a case of doubtful integrity. The impugned action of compulsorily
C retiring the appellant from service can be termed as arbitrary in the
sense that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that
the appellant had outlived his utility as a member of the railway service
and ·had become a deadwood, which had to be chopped off. (616-F-G]

Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, [1997) 7 SCC 463; MS. Bindra v.
D Union ofIndia, [1998) 7 SCC 310 and State ofGujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal
Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6233 of2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.2003 of the Punjab and
E Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 10285/CAT/2003.

K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.

Rajiv Dutta, S. Beno Bencigar, Ms. Namrata Chopra and Shreekant N.
Terdol for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKHSMANAN, J. : Leave granted.

The above appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and order
dated 24.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
G
Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 10285/CAT/2003 wherein the High
Court as dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-herein and
confirmed the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal imposing the
punishment of compulsory retirement.

H The short facts are as follows :
PRITAM SINGH v. U.0.1. [LAKSHMANIAN, J.] 611

The appellant was appointed in the Northern Railways in Ministerial A
Service on 14.07.1965 and was due to retire on 3 l.05.2002. The appellant,
while working as Head Clerk in the Northern Railways was issued a Merit
Certificate, wherein his work and conduct had been highly commended. The
appellant was also selected for being promoted as <?ffice Superintendent
Grade-IL However, he was not given posting of the supervisory post. A junior
B
to the appellant was favoured with the said posting and the appellant had
protested against the favoured treatment and in the process he incurred the
displeasure of his superior officers, particularly, respondent No. 2. One of
the employees sought for the "absentee" statement of tool room shop the
appellant. The said "absentee" statement was given by the appellant to the
said employee. This "absentee" statement was used by the employee in his c
petition filed against the Railways challenging the disciplinary action against
him. This act on the part of the appellant was viewed as a mis-conduct and
leakage of the official information. Charge-sheet was issued to the appellant
alleging act of mis-conduct against him. The charge-sheet reads thus :

"Article I : D

That the said Shri Pritam Singh while functioning as OS-II in
time office on 31.08.1995 at 9 .00 hrs. took the record of absence
statement of tool room pertaining to 20.12.1993 from Shri O.P. Saini
and leaked it out with the result the photocopy of absentee statement E
was attached by Shri Sewa Singh, Harjit Singh and Subeg Singh
with their rejoinder to 0.A. No. 859/PB/95 filed in CATICDG co be
used against UOI leaking of absentee statement is a serious misconduct
and speaks of doubtful integrity of Shri Pritam Singh.

Thus, he violated the Rule 3 l(i), (ii) and (iii) of Rly. Services F
Conduct Rules, 1966."

SD/-
(HARSH KUMAR)
Dy. CME/ASR
N. Rly. Mech. Workshop.
G
ASR, 14.11.1995.'~

An enquiry was held against the appellant and a report was submitted
holding the appellant guilty of leaking official documents. The appellant, by
his memo submitted to his higher officer, admitted the finding of guilt in H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A respect of the charges made against him on 16.03.1996. The said letter reads
as follows :

'DB CME/ASR
R/Sir,
Su~ : Finding of the enquiries officer against SF-5
B
Ref : Your letter No. 727-E/453 l/DAR/dated 02.03.1986

Since I have received the findings of the enquiry officer by
proving me guilty of the charges. I have nothing to. represent against
this as such, I admit the charges. The statement given by me during
c enquiry for denying the charges was not correct. I feel sorry for the
same.

I am at the verge of retirement and request your goodself to
consider my case sympathetically. I assure your goodselfto remain
disciplined in future.
D
Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
Dated: 16.03.1996 Sd/-
. (PRITAM SINGH)
E
Supdt. II
DSC Shop Asstt."

On the basis of the enquiry report and the statement of the appellant,
respondent No. 3 passed an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant.
F The appellant, b,y his appeal against the order o~ the respondent No. 3 filed
before respondeQ.t No. 2, gave a detailed account of the revengeful measures
practised by the respondent No. 3 against him. It was also pointed out as to
how five charge-sheets were issued one after the another in the course of 15
days against the appellant by using one O.P. Saini, the colleague of the
appellant against him. The appeal was rejected by respondent No. 2. The
G revision filed by the appellant was also rejected. The appellant, thereafter,
approached the CAT, Chandigarh and filed O.A. No. 1148/PB/2002 which
was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the punishment alone cannot be
interfered with. The appellant,. thereafter, fikd the writ petition in the High
Court which wa:; also rejected by the Division Bench. Aggrieved aga~nst the
H same, the above special leave petition was file(f.
_J

PRITAM SINGH v. U.0.1. [LAKSHMANIAN, J.] 613

We have heard Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the A
appellant and Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Railways.

We have been taken though the pleadings, the documents marked as
annexures etc. Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
after narrating the facts submitted that the puni::;hment imposed on the
B
appellant is unreasonable, irrational and disproportionate to the guilt found
against the appellant. It was submitted that the charge against the appellant
is that he supplied "absentee" statement to one of the employees who in tum
utilised the same in the case filed by him against the Railways and that
"absentee" statement supplied by the appellant was neither a confidential c
document nor a privileged document. The employee concerned has the right
of information and when he asked for the same, the same could not have been
denied to him and that the supply of the "absentee" statement was not
prohibited either by Jaw or by any administrative circulars. It was further
submitted that the appellant had a long service career of 31 years and his
D
service was highly commended with merit certificate issued to him. Concluding
his argument, the learned counsel submitted that the entire act of respondent
No. 3 in slapping one after another five charge-sheets in the course of 15
days was an act of revengeful and malajide and that the appellant admitteq
the charge by filing a memo of confession hoping against hope that he would
be leniently dealt with. Mr. Nagaraja submitted that in view of the above E
factors, the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement is viitated by
unreasonableness, irrationality and dis-proportionality.

Per contra Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Railways submitted that the document in question can be supplied to any F
employee, specially one who is Jocked in litigation with the Railway
Administration, only on his written request and with the approval of the
competent authority. The appellant in the instant case has failed to do so. The
appellant is only the custodian of the document and not the approving
authority to supply such document to any employee. As such, the appellant
has not followed the proper procedure for supplying the document and is G
guilty of unauthorisedly communicating the said document to another
employee of the Railways who is litigating against the Railways.

It was further argued that in the enquiry, the appellant was proved to
be guilty of the charges and that the appellant also accepted his guilt and H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A expressed his regret vi de letter dated 16.03 .1996. Learned counsel also
denied that the appellant has served for 31 long years without any blemish
in his service record and that he was awarded three punishments, namely,
( 1) stoppage of two sets of privilege passes and three sets of privilege ticket;
(2) stoppage oftwo ~ets of privilege passes on 20.01.1998 (after retirement);
and (3) withholding of increment temporarily for t\vo years on 01.04.1994
B which punishment was later reduced to censure. C~ncluding his argument,
the learned senior counsel for the Railways submitted that the order of
punishment imposed on the appellant is in accordance with the gravity of the
offence committed by the appellant and that the appellant has been found to
be guilty in earlier cases also awarded punishments. Since the appellant has
c admitted the charges and requested for a sympathetic consideration, he was
awarded punishment of compulsory retirement. He would further urge that
the Railway Administration has a right to maintain discipline in the services
and in that context the punishment imposed on the appellant is appropriate
keeping in view the magnitude and gravity of the mis"conduct.
D
In· this background of facts, the following question of law arises for
consideration by this Court :-
•
Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the
Petitioner is highly disproportionate to the admitted guilt of supplying
E absentee statement to one of the employees particularly when the Petitioner,
in his long devoted blemishless service of 31 ye~rs, was never served with
any adverse entries/remarks and all of a sudden in the course of a fortnight,
on the verge of his retirement, was slapped with one after another series of
charge-sheets on account of the wrath and displeasure of Respondent No. 3
F only?

We have giver our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances
of the case with reference to the records placed before us. It is true that the
appellant has supplied a document containing information regarding the
absentee details of a co-worker which is neither confidential or privileged
G information nor the appellant was under any official communication prohibiting
him to supply the same. It was a right of the employee concerned to obtain
the information from the office. Therefore, the appellant bonajide believed
that he had rrot committed any offence. Learned counsel appearing for the
Railways, in his reply, referred to some penalties imposed on the appellant
H on earlier occasion. The punishment imposed, in those cases, are in the nature
PRITAM SINGH v. U.O.I. [LAKSHMANIAN, J.] 615

of stoppage of privilege passes and censure. According to the appellant, no A
other penalty or punishment admittedly was not communicated to the
appellant.

The appellant himself has admitted that he had issued the absentee
details to a co-worker in good faith and bonafide. Just because an employee
is facing litigation, he does not lose his right to get the information to which
B
he has a right, so long as the same is not barred. Moreover, furnishing of
such information has not done or caused any damage to the office except
causing some inconvenient situation to the Railways in contesting the case
of an employee and the Railway Administration was confronted with the said
absentee statement which prompted the Railways to initiate action against the c
appellant. The stoppage of two sets of privilege passes on 20.01.1998 is for
the period after the retirement of the appellant on 0 l.04.1996.

In our opinion, the High Court has committed an error in not interfering
with the punishment of compulsory retirement even though the appellant
s~bmitted that the mis-conduct alleged against him was not at all an offence
D
or even a serious mistake. The act of mis-conduct alleged against him was
that he supplied a list of absentee detai.ls to one of the employees, who was
fighting a case before the Tribunal against the Railways. This list contained
the ticket numbers of the workers of a shop, who were absent on that date.
This was neither a confidential document nor a privileged document. It E
contained details to which the employee concerned had a right of information.
The appellant being a Superintendent Grade-II and in-charge of the information
acted bona fide in good faith while supplying the information. In our opinion,
this kind of an act was neither a mis-conduct nor a serious mistake. When
the charges were found proved against the appellant, the appellant admitted
that he had supplied the absentee details.
F

The only question, therefore, that survived was whether the punishment
of compulsory retirement against the appellant who had served 31 years of
service is vitiated as being disproportionate to the alleged mis-conduct. The
Tribunal and the High Court have refused to interfere on the ground that the G
power of judicial review does not permit interference with the quantum of
punishment unless the punishment impose is shockingly disproportionate.

We are of the opinion that the instant case is a glaring example of abuse
of discretionary power of the Disciplinary Authority as the punishment of
H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A compulsory retirement imposed on the appellant, who has put in 31 years of
long service only because he has supplied the details of absentation to one
of the employees, which was neither confidential nor a privileged document.
In any event, the appellant bonafide believed that he was right in furnishing
the details which the employee had right to ask,for. In our opinion, this is
a fit case where the High Court and the Tribunal should have held that the
B
punishment imposed is vitiated on account of the disproportionality.

This Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham,
[1997] 7 SCC 463 while examining the scope of judicial review held that
"reasonableness" "rationality" and "proportionality" are the grounds on the
C basis of which judicial review of the administrative order can be undertaken.
Considering the facts extracted herein before, we find that the exercise of
power by the Respondent falls in the category of arbitrary exercise of power.

A perusal of the compulsory retirement order would reveal that it was
D not stated that the action was initiated in public interest.

This Court also has held in the case of MS. Bindra v. Union of India
& Ors., [ 1998] 7 SCC 310 that judicial scrutiny of any order imposing
premature compulsory retirement is permissible; if the order is either arbitrary
or ma/afide or if it is based on no evidence.
E
This Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryabnt
Chunilal Shah, [1999] 1 SCC 529 held that in a case of compulsory
retirement public interest is the primary consideration.

In the instant case, no material on record was placed before the
F
disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority, Tribunal and
before the High Court to reasonably form an opinion that compulsory
retirement was in public interest. The case on hand is also not a case of
doubtful integrity. The impugned action of compulsorily retiring the appellant
from service can be termed as arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person
G could have come to the conclusion that the appellant had outlived his utility
as a member of railway service and had become a deadwood which had to
be chopped off.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the order
H of compulsory retirement passed by the High Court affirming the order of •
PRITAM SINGH v. U.O.I. [LAKSHMANIAN, J.] 617

the Tribunal. The appellant is not now in service. He would have normally A
retired on 31.05.2002 from service on superannuation had he continued in
service. Now that we have set aside the order of compulsory retirement, the
appellant will be deemed to be on duty from the date of compulsory
retirementtill the date of superannuatiion, namely, 31.05.2002. The appellant
is entitled to all consequential, monetary and other retiral benefits, which B
shall be calculated and paid to the appellant within three months from today.
No costs.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.