RAMANUJ PANDEYversusTHE STATE OF M. P. AND ORS.

                            [2009] 8 S.C.R. 571


                           RAMANUJ PANDEY                               A
                                        v.'
                     THE STATE OF M. P. AND ORS.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 3406 of 2009)

                               MAY 08, 2009
                                                                        B
             [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
 .,.

             Service Law: Misconduct - Police constable during
        discharge of official duty apprehending public servant under
        Lunacy Act ·- On complaint, initiation of disciplinary C
       proceedings - Punishment of termination of service - Order
        confirmed in writ proceeding - On appeal, held: Quantum of
       punishment in case of misconduct not to be interfered with in
..     judicial review - However, the conduct of the delinquent was
       not grave enough to punish him with removal of service - In D
       exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution,
       punishment of removal of service altered to one of
       compulsory retirement as a warning to others and not as a
       vengeance - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 and
       226 - Judicial Review.                                        E

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
       3406 of 2009.

            From the Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2006 of the High      F
       Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, (M.P.) in Writ Appeal No. 693
       of 2006.

           Rajesh for the Appellants.

           S.K. Dubey, Naveen and B.S. Banthia for the                  G
       Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                                   571                                  H
                                                            I
    572      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 8 S.C.R.


A         H.L. DATIU, J. Leave granted.

       1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
  passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Writ
  Appeal No. 693 of 2006 dated 22.11.2006. By the impugned
B judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, stating
  that the punishment of removal from service of the appellant
  cannot on the facts and circumstances of the case shocks the
   conscience of the Court.

      2. The facts leading to this Special Leave Petition are: the
c appellant was appointed as a Constable in the service of M.P.
  Police on 1.11.1967 and was subsequently promoted to the
  post of Head Constable. On the relevant date i.e. 25.9.1991
  while discharging his duties as lncharge, Outpost, Kolar Dam,
  Birpur appellant apprehended one Laxmi Narain, Dozer                 ,;
D Operator of Kolar Dam and registered a complaint against him
  under Section 13 of the Lunacy Act. In the complaint filed,
  appellant had stated that Laxmi Narain in an insane state of
  mind assaulted him and caused injuries. On the other hand, son
  of Laxmi Narain filed a complaint and requested the authorities
E to conduct inquiry against the appellant. Inquiry was conducted
  and consequent thereto, a charge sheet was issued to the
  appellant and he was kept under suspension pending domestic          ~

  enquiry proceedings. The appellant in his reply had denied all
  the charges. In the Departmental Inquiry conducted by
F Superintendent of Police, Sehore on 7.5.1992, he has held the
  appellant guilty of the said charges and was removed from
  government services affirming that the appellant had done a
  very heinous act by detaining a public servant in police post
  without any reason, violatirig his fundamental rights. Appellant
G went before the High Court contending that no departmental
  inquiry was warranted in such matter and the punishment ·
                                                                       .
  imposed is shockingly disproportionate. The High Court
  dismissed the petition confirming the decision of the disciplinary
  authority. The appellant then went in appeal before the Division
H
            RAMANUJ PANDEY v. STATE OF M. P. AND ORS.                     573
                        [H. L. DATTU, J.]
    '     Bench. The Division Bench held that appellant being a Head             A
          Constable has apprehended Laxmi Narain and registered him
          under the Lunacy Act, although he was not a Lunatic, therefore,
          the punishment of removal from service of the appellant cannot
          on these facts be held to be one which shocks the conscience
          of the Court.                                                          B

    ...        3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties .

               4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that
          the appellant could not be held to have misused his position
          as Head Constable and not acted in good faith. He would also
                                                                                 c
          contend that the punishment awarded to the appellant is
          shockingly disproportionate and excessive. Learned Counsel
          would draw our attention to the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union
          of India, AIR 1996 SC 484, wherein this court held that:
   •                                                                             D
               "A review of the above legal position would establish that
               the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate
               authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive
               power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain
               discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose       E
               appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or
               gravity of the misconduct. The High Courtrrribunal, while
... '         exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
              substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some
              other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary       F
              authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience
              of the High Courtrrribunal, it would appropriately mould the
              relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to
              reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation,
              it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose               G
              appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support
              thereof."

              5. In the case of Commr. of Police v. Syed Hussain,
                                                                                 H
,,
         574      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                              f
     A (2006) 3 SCC 173, this Court observed that, it is one thing to
       say that order passed by the statutory authority is wholly arbitrary
       and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus liable
       to be set aside, b.ut it is another thing to say that the
       discretionary jurisdiction exercised by such authority should not
     B ordinarily be interfered with by a superior court while exercising
       its power of judicial review unless one or the other ground upon
       which and on the basis whereof the power of judicial review can
       be exercised, exists. It is, therefore, beyond any doubt or
       dispute that the doctrine of proportionality has to be applied in
     C appropriate case as the depth of judicial review will depend on
       the facts and circumstances of each case.

            6. Admittedly, it is for the disciplinary authority or the
       administrative authority to decide the quantum of punishment
       in a case of misconduct and the role of the Court is only
     0
       secondary. But in view of the gravity of the misconduct, namely,
       the appellant having apprehended Laxmi Narain and registering
       him under section 13 of the Lunacy Act, where the disciplinary
       authority held appellant guilty for detaining a public servant in
     E police post without any reason and removed him from
       government services, the interference with the imposition of
       punishment is necessary.

             7. In the present matter the appellant, while discharging his
       duties apprehended Laxmi Narain and registered him under
     F Lunacy Act without any sufficient reasons. This act of his had
       indisputably caused harassment to Laxmi Narain and was
       detrimental to the image of police department, but the same
       was also not grave enough to punish him with removal from
       services. The appellant as a head constable was bestowed with
     G official duties and while discharging them he went outside its
       purview, which definitely warrants that his services must be
       terminated, but as a warning to others and not as a vengeance.

               8. While considering the power to interfere with the order
     H
 RAMANUJ PANDEY v. STATE OF M. P. AND ORS.                    575
             [H. L. DATIU, J.]
of punishment, this Court in the case of Rangaswami v. State         A
of T.N., AIR 1989 SC 1137, held that this Court, while
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution,
is empowered to alter or interfere with the penalty.

    9. Accordingly, the punishment of appellant of dismissal         8
from services as imposed by the disciplinary authority is
substituted to one of compulsory retirement from the date of his
dismissal from services i.e. 7.5.1992.

     10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is              C
partly set aside. No order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                   Appeal partly allowed.