Holding

The termination of Hazarilal’s service was unreasonable and disproportionate, and therefore invalid.

Summary

Hazarilal, a peon in a Madhya Pradesh middle school, was convicted under IPC sections 323 and 34 for a simple assault and was fined Rs.500 after his one‑month imprisonment was reduced on appeal. The State terminated his service under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, invoking Rule 19 which allows dismissal for conduct leading to a criminal conviction. Hazarilal challenged the termination before the State Administrative Tribunal, which reinstated him on the ground that dismissal was excessive; the High Court dismissed his writ petition and the State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority must exercise its statutory discretion reasonably and proportionately, considering the nature of the offence and the employee’s low rank, and found the termination to be unreasonable and disproportionate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State’s appeal, effectively setting aside the termination order. The judgment emphasized the shift from the Wednesbury unreasonableness test to the doctrine of proportionality in judicial review of disciplinary actions.

Issues considered

The propriety of terminating the service of a low‑ranking government employee convicted of a minor assault with a nominal fine.
Whether Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1966, mandates dismissal in such cases.
Whether the disciplinary authority exercised its statutory discretion in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
Applicability of the doctrine of proportionality versus the traditional Wednesbury test in reviewing disciplinary actions.

Legislation cited

Subjects

service terminationdisciplinary actionproportionalityWednesbury principleArticle 311Rule 19criminal convictionjudicial reviewMadhya Pradesh civil services

Judgment

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 787

STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. A
II.
HAZARILAL
(Civil Appeal No. 6498 of 2005)
FEBRUARY 12, 2008
.B
[S.B. SINHA AND. HARJIT SINGH BEDI; JJ.]

Service Law - Termination of service - In view of
conviction uls 323 rlw 34 /PC by a Criminal Court - Tribunal
and High Court directing his reinstatement' h'ofding that c
punishment was excessive - On appeal, held: Disciplinary
authority while imposing punishment under its statutory
discretionary powers, should take into account attending facts
and circumstances of the c9se - In the facts of the case, order
of termination is unreasonable and also disproportionate - D.
Service rules relied on by the State is not applicable to the
instant case - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - r.19.
Respondent was a peon. He was convicted u/s 323
r/w s. 34 IPC and was punished with fine of Rs.500/-. In E
view of that, disciplinary action was taken against him and
consequently his services were terminated. His
application seeking his reinstatement was allowed by the
State Administrative Tribunal holding that the punishment
of .termination of service is excessive. Writ petition filed F
against th~ order of the Tribunal was dismissed. Hence
the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The attitude of the appellant is G
unreasonable. Respondent had not committed any
misconduct within the meaning of the provisions of the
Service Rules. He was involved in a matter for causing
simple injury to another person. He was not even sent to
787 H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A prison. Only a sum of Rs.500/- was imposed upon him as r
fine. [Para 5] [790-G; 791-A]
1.2 An authority which is conferred with a statutory
discretionary power is bound to take into consideration
all the attending facts and circumstances of the case
B before imposing an order of punishment. While exercising
such power, the disciplinary authority must act reasonably
and fairly. Respondent occupies the lowest rank of the
cadre. He was merely a contingency peon. Continuation
of his service in the department would not bring a bad
C name to the State. He was not convicted for any act
involving moral turpitude. He was not punished for any
heinous offence. [Para 8] [792-B, C]
Shankar Das vs. Union of India 1985 (2) SCC 358 -
relied on.
0
2. The legal parameters of judicial review has
undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of
unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of
proportionality. Applying the doctrine of proportionality
E principle also, no interference with the impugned
judgment is called for. [Paras 12 and 15] [793-E; 794-G]
Indian Airlines Ltd. vs. Prabha D. Kuinari 2006 (1~) SCC
67; State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava 2006 (3)
SCC 276; M.P. Gangadhran and Anr. vs. State of Kera/a and
F Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2360; Coimbatore District Central
Cooperative Bank vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative
Bank Employees Association and Anr. 2007 (4) SCC 669;
Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors. 1987 (4) SCC 611 -
relied on.
G
Sea/ (FC) (Appellant) vs. Chief Constable of South Wales
Police (respondent) 2007 (4) All ER 177; Huang (FC)
(Respondent) vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Appellant) and Kashmiri (FC) (Appellant) Vs. Secretary of
State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Conjoined
H
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHER'S. v. HAZARILAL 789
[S.8. SINHA, J.]
"I Appeals) 2007 (4) All ER 15; Tweed (Appellant) vs. Parades A
Commission for Northern Ireland (Respondents) (Northern
Ireland) 2007 (2) All ER 273; Belfast City Council (Appellants)·
vs. Miss Behvain Limited (Respnfients) (Northern Ireland)
2007 (3) All ER 1007; R (On the application of Countryside
Alliance and Ors) vs. Her Majesty's Attorney General and Anr. B
2007 (3) WLR 922- referred to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6498
of 2005.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2004 of c
the High Court of Judicature for Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Gwalior in W.P. No. 375/2003. ·
Siddhartha Dave, Vibha Datta Makhija and Nemtiben Ao
for the Appellants.
D
Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai and K. Rajeev for the
i Respondent.
The Judgment of thl? Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Respondent was a Peon appointed in
a Middle School. He is said to have assaulted one Ram Singh · E
on 5th October, 1989. He was prosecuted for commi~sion of
the said offence and was convicted by a Court of Magistrate by
a judgment dated 22nd July, 1992 under Section 323 read with .
. Section 34ofthe lnpian l?enal Code and sentenced to undergo
.. one month's simple imprisonment. On an appeal preferred by F
him, the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs.500/- only. A
revision thereagainst was filed by the respondent herein before
the High Court.
2. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent as G
to why· disciplinary action shall not be taken against him in view
-\ of the judgment of conviction passed against him in the said
criminal case. By an order dated 25th November, 1993 his
services were terminated by the Deputy Director, Vidisha. An
appeal thereagainst was preferred by the respondent in terms
-1 H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A of Madhya Pradesh State Services Act. However, no order was t
passed therein. A revision was filed by him before the Deputy
Director, Public Education. During the pendency of the said
revision application, his criminal revision petition filed before
the High Court was dismissed. The prayer of the respondent
B that he be reinstated in service was rejected in terms of the
order dated 11th January, 1994 passed by the Deputy Director,
Public Education, Vidisha. )'---
~
3. Respondent thereafter filed an Original Application ~
before the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior. The Tribunal
c by an order dated 25th November, 2002 allowed the said
application holding :-
"However, the applicant succeeds on the ground that the
punishment of removal from service is grossly excessive·
because the punishment was only under section 323 IPC
D
and the High Court has clarified that the punishment does
not involve any moral turpitude every power vested in a +
public authority has to be exercised fairly, justly and
reasonably. Respondents should have applied their mind
to the penalty which should be appropriately be imposed
E in the circumstances of the case. Please see Shankar
Das Vs. Union of India (1985 2 SCC 358). This does not
seem to have been done."
A writ petition filed thereagainst by the appellants before ....
'

F the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned
judgment.
,,
4. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of he appellants, submitted that the High Court committed '
·)--

a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as ~

G it failed to take into consideration that the Tribunal or the High '
Court could not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. I- . j..--

5. The case in hand appears to be a gross one. This Court
~
is unable to appreciate the attitude on the part of the appellant
herein which ex-facie appears to be wholly unreasonable.
H
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. v. HAZARILAL 791
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

Respondent had not committed any misconduct within the A
41
meaning of the provisions of the Service Rules. He was involved
in a matter for causing simple injury to another person. He was
not even sent to prison. Only a sum of Rs.500/- was imposed
upon him as fine.
6. Rule 19 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control B
and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which provides for special procedure
in certain cases, to which reliance has been placed by the
~
appellants does not appear to be applicable in the instant case .
•
The said Rule reads thus:-
c
"19. Special procedure in certain cases .
•
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government
ser{ant on the ground of conduct which has led to his
D
conviction on a criminal charge, or

-·-i
1 (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not
reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry in the
manner provided in these rules, or E
(iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of
the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold
any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the
disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances
of the case and make such orders thereon as it F
___,
, deems fit.
'
Provided that the Commission shall be consulted
where such consultation is necessary, before any orders
are made in any case under this rule."
G
7. By reason of the said provision, thus, "the disciplinary
--\ authority has been empowered to consider the circumstances
of the case where any penalty is imposed on a Government
servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction
·~
on a criminal charge", but the same would not mean that H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 2 S.C.R. '.
A irrespective of the nature of the case in which he was involved
or the punishmentwhic:;h has been imposed upon him, an order
of dismissal must be passed. Such a construction, in our
opinion,· is not warranted.
8. An authority which is conferred with a statutory
B discretionary power is bound to take into consideration all the
. · attending facts and circumstances of the case before imposing
· an order of punishment. While exercising such power, the
disciplinary authority must act reasonably and fairly. Respondent .. '

occupied the lowest rank of the cadre. He was merely a
C contingencypeon. Continuation of his service in the department
would not bring a bad name to the State. He. was not convicted
. for any act involving moral turpitude. He was not punished for
any heinous offence.
D 9. The Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly placed reliance upon
the decision of this Court in Shankar Das vs. Union of India·:
(1985) 2 SCC 358 wherein this Court commended the judgment ·~
of a Magistrate of Delhi as he had let off the appellant therein !

under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act stating :- ,1: •
..
E "Misfortune dogged the accused for about a year..:...and it t
seems that it was under the force of adverse circumstances i-
that he held back the money in question. Shankar Dass is
a middle-aged man and it is obvious that it was under
compelling circumstances that he could not deposit the
F money in question in time: He is not a previous convict.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of
I-
the opinion that he should be dealt with under the Probation I

of Offenders Act, 1958."
1O. Despite the said observation Shankar Das was
G dismissed from service. This Court held:-
;
"7. It is to be lamented that despite these observations of I-· ~.'
the learned Magistrate, the Government chose to dismiss ' l
~he appellant in a huff, without applying its mind to the
- . penalty which could appropriately be imposed upon him (_
H )

>-
~
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. v. HAZARILAL 793
[S.B. SINHA,·J.]

• insofar as his service career was concerned. Clause (a) A
of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution
confers on the Government the power to dismiss a person
from service "on the ground of conduct which has led to
his conviction on a criminal charge". But, that power, like ·
every other power, has to be exercised fairly, justly and B
reasonably. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate
thata government servant who is convicted for parking his
"'·'1
scooter in a no-parking area should be dismissed from
' service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on
the question of penalty since clause (a) of the second c
proviso to Article 311 (2) makes the provisions of that article
inapp1icable when a penalty is to be imposed on a
government servant on the ground of conduct which has
-r led to. his conviction on a criminal charge. But the right to
impose a penalty carries with it the duty to act justly.
D
Considering the facts of this case, there can be no two
opinions that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed
upon the appellant is whimsical."
11. We express similar dis-satisfaction in this case.
12. Furthermore the legal parameters of judicial review E
has undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of
unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of
proportionality. [See : Indian Airlines Ltd. vs. Prabha D. Kumari:
(2006) 11 SCC 67 ; State of UP. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal
Srivastava : (2006) 3 SCC 276 and M. P. Gangadharan and p
1
another vs. State of Kera/a and others: AIR 2006 SC 2360.]
13. At this stage we may also notice the application of the
Doctrine by the U.nited Kingdom House of Lords in Sea/ (FC)
(Appellant) vs. Chief Constable of South Wales Police
G
(Respondent): [2007]4All ER177; Huang (FC) (Respondent)

'"' ·v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) and
KashmJri (FC) (Appellant) vs. Secretary of State for the Home
Department (Respondent) (Conjoined Appeals) : [2007] 4 All
ER 15; Tweed (Appellant) vs. Parades Commission for
H
'X
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Northern Ireland (Respondents) (Northern Ireland) [2007] 2 x
All ER 273; Belfast City Council (Appellants) vs. Miss Behavin'
Limited (Respondents) (Northern Ireland) [2007] 3 All ER 1007
and R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others
and others) vs. Her Majesty's Attorney General and another
B [2007] 3 WLR 922.
14. It is interesting to note that distinguishing between the
traditional grounds of judicial review and the doctrine of l'-·-1
\.
proportionality, Lord Carswell in Tweed (Supra) after referring
to previous decisions and authorities, observed:
c
"The starting point is that there is an overlap between the
traditional grounds of review. and the approach of proportionality.
Most cases would be decided in the same way whichever
approach is adopted. But the intensity of review is somewhat ~
greater under the proportionality. approach. Making due
D
allowance for important structural differe,nces between various
convention rights, which I do not propose to discuss, a few
generalisations are perhaps permissible. I would mention three
concrete differences without suggesting that my statement is
exhaustive. First, the doctrine of proportionality may require the
E reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision maker
has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational
or reasonable decisions. Secondly, the proportionality test may
go further than the traditional grounds of review inasmuch as it
may require attention to be directed to the relative weight
F accorded to interests and considerations. Thirdly, even the
1'
.
'.1
heightened scrutiny test developed in R v Ministry of Defence,
Exp Smith [1996] QB 517, 554 is not necessarily appropriate
to the protection of human rights."
15. Applying the said principle also, in our opinion, no
G
interference with the impugned judgment is called for.
16. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on 7·•
Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank vs. Coimbatore
Distarict Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association
H and another: (2007) 4 SCC 669 wherein also this Court
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS. v. HAZARILAL 795
[S.8. SINHA, J.]
, , A
accepted the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality. A
Therein this Court has quoted with approval the decision of this
Court in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and others: (1987) 4
SCC 611 as also MP Gangadharan and another vs. State of
Kera/a and others : (2006) 6 SCC 162, which had applied the
doctrine of proportionality. B ,
17. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in
this appeal which is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is
quantified at Rs.25,000/-.,
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed. c