Service Law: Indiscipline and misconduct – Removal from service – Appellant was serving as a Head Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal – He was charged with violation of good order and discipline u/s. 43 of 2007 Act for having entered the Mahila Barrack at mid-night to meet his alleged female friend – Appellant was held guilty of the charges and order of removal from service was passed against him – Appellant filed writ petition – Plea of appellant was that much lesser punishment was imposed against a female constable who allowed the entry of the appellant and same was discriminatory – On this ground, single judge set aside punishment of ‘removal from service’ and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to impose any lesser punishment which may facilitate the appellant to retain his job – Disciplinary authority successfully challenged the order of single judge before Division Bench – Hence instant appeal by the delinquent – Held: The nature of misconduct committed by the appellant was grave in nature and unpardonable – Misconduct committed by a male Head Constable cannot be equated with the misconduct committed by female constable – Single judge committed grave error in comparing the case of female constable with that of the appellant male Head Constable – Merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate – Imposition of punishment/penalty on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him – Punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate at all to the misconduct held to be proved against the appellant – Sashatra Seema Bal Act, 2007 – s. 43.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant was imposed the penalty of ‘removal from service’ after the charges levelled against him stood proved by the disciplinary authority in an enquiry held against him after following the procedure prescribed under the SSB Rules. The nature of allegations against the appellant are grave in nature. He entered the Mahila Barrack in the midnight at around 00:15 hours, may be to meet his alleged friend Rupasi Barman, but such an indisciplined conduct leading to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack cannot be tolerated. The nature of misconduct which has been committed by the appellant stands proved and is unpardonable. Therefore, when the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to punish him with the penalty of ‘removal from service’, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, thereafter it was not open for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. [Para 9][1117-G-H; 1118-B-C]
2. The Single Judge did not appreciate that the misconduct committed by the delinquent official, being a male Head Constable cannot be equated with the misconduct committed by the female constable. The misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is more serious when committed by a male Head Constable. Therefore, the Single Judge committed a grave error in comparing the case of female constable with that of the appellant – delinquent, male Head Constable. [Para 10][1118-E-F]
3. Merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by the disciplinary authority after due application of mind. There cannot be any negative discrimination. The punishment/penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court is absolutely justified in interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service. If the conduct on the part of the appellant entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is approved, in that case, it would lead to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack. Therefore, the disciplinary authority was absolutely justified in imposing the punishment/penalty of ‘removal from service’ by modifying the earlier punishment of dismissal. The same cannot be said to be disproportionate at all to the misconduct held to be proved against the appellant – delinquent. The present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. [Para 11 and 12][1118-F-H; 1119-A-C]
Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 : [2000]
4 Suppl. SCR 693; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549; Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (2006) 10 SCC 388 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 217 ; Union of India v. Diler Singh (2016) 13 SCC 71 : [2016] 4 SCR 473; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995]
4 Suppl. SCR 644; Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabd, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v.
Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372 : [2013] 17 SCR
309 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.