REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3406 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1019 of 2008)

Ramanuj Pandey                                                                   ……….Appellant

Versus

The State of M.P. & ors.                                                       ……..Respondent

JUDGMENT  

H.L. Dattu,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  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 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  

1

relevant  date  i.e.  25.9.1991  while  discharging  his  duties  as  Incharge,  

Outpost,  Kolar Dam, Birpur appellant apprehended one Laxmi Narain,  

Dozer 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  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  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,  violating  his  fundamental  rights.  

Appellant 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 Bench. The Division Bench held that  

appellant  being a Head Constable has apprehended Laxmi Narain and  

2

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.  

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 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:    

“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 appropriate punishment  

keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.  

The High Court/Tribunal, 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 authority or the appellate authority  

3

shocks  the  conscience  of  the  High  Court/Tribunal,  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  appropriate  punishment  with  cogent  

reasons in support thereof.”

5)In the case of Commr of Police v. Syed Hussain, (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, but it is another thing to  

say that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by such authority should  

not 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  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 secondary. But in view of the gravity of  

the misconduct, namely, the appellant having apprehended Laxmi Narain  

4

and  registering  him  under  section  13  of  the  Lunacy  Act, where  the  

disciplinary authority held appellant guilty for detaining a public servant  

in 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 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 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 of punishment,  

this  Court in the case of Rangaswami v. State 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 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.

5

10)In view of the above discussion,  the appeal  is partly allowed.  The  

impugned order passed by the High Court is partly set aside. No order as  

to costs.  

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ H.L. DATTU ] New Delhi, May 08, 2009.

6