http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3471 OF 2008           (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13673 of 2006)

STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ORS.                  ...... APPELLANTS

                           Versus

MECKEN SINGH N. MARAK                      ......RESPONDENT

                     JUDGMENT

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

1.        Leave granted.

2.          The   instant   appeal   is   directed   against   the

Judgment dated March 7, 2006, rendered by the Division

Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No.282 of

2002 whereby the decision of the learned Single Judge dated

October 5, 2002 passed in Civil Rule No.4048 of 1996,

upholding the order of the Competent Authority, removing the

respondent from service, is set aside and the matter is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

                                                             2 remanded to the appellate authority, namely, the Inspector

General   of   Police   to   consider   and   inflict   appropriate

punishment, short of removal from service, commensurate

with the gravity of the proven misconduct.

3.        The relevant facts emerging from the record of the

case are as under.      In the year 1967 the respondent was

appointed as police constable by the Home Department,

Government of Meghalaya. During the course of time he was

promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of police and posted as

Armed Branch Sub-Inspector, 2nd Meghalaya Police Battalion

at Goeragre. On May 5, 1995 he was directed to go to Shillong

along with BNC Clyforth Sangma to disburse the pay for the

month of April 1995 to the Bn personnel posted at Shillong.

One 0.38 bore revolver bearing Number 787735 and 12

rounds of 0.38 ammunition were also issued to him for the

purpose. He was specifically instructed to proceed to Shillong

in a vehicle belonging to the department with other police

personnel who were going to Shillong on platoon transfer with

their arms and ammunition.         The respondent was further

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

                                                           3 instructed to come back to Goeragre from Shillong in the same

vehicle after the disbursement of pay etc. with other personnel

who were to come back to Goeragre with their arms and

ammunition.     The respondent, in the company of Clyforth

Sangma left Bn Headquarters in the morning of May 5, 1995

by Unit’s vehicle No.ML-02 1038 at about 8.30 AM and arrived

at Shillong at about 8.00 PM.      On arrival at Shillong, the

respondent began to disburse the pay.        He also spent the

whole next day in disbursing the rest of the pay. An amount

of Rs.17,314/- could not be disbursed by him and he was

supposed to deposit the same with the competent authority at

the Headquarters. The respondent permitted Clyforth Sangma

to visit his wife who was not feeling well and, therefore, in the

morning of May 7, 1995 Clyforth Sangma left for his village

Rajasimla and returned back to Bn Headquarters on May 9,

1995.

4.        The respondent disobeyed the instructions given to

him to come back to Bn Headquarters in the vehicle in which

he had gone to Shillong. Instead he met and instructed BNC

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

                                                              4 737   Emmanual     Jalong   to   prepare   to    leave   for       Bn

Headquarters by night bus. On May 7, 1995 in the evening at

about 4.30 p.m. he left the camp for the M.T.C. Bus Station.

At the bus station he did not see the constables who were

supposed to travel with him. Presuming that they must have

proceeded in another bus, the respondent boarded the MTC

bus No.ML-03-0099 bound for Tura. He was seated in Seat

No.22. There was a passenger in the seat next to him on Seat

No.21. At Jorabat the bus stopped where the respondent took

dinner. After the bus resumed its onward journey for Tura,

his co-passenger in Seat No.21 started chatting with him. The

co-passenger took out a packet of biscuit and offered biscuits

to the respondent. The respondent accepted the biscuits and

after eating the biscuit he dosed off. When he woke up, the

bus had reached somewhere near Anogri. He made enquiry

about his belongings and found that his revolver with

ammunition and pouch containing an amount of Rs.17,314/-,

which was undisbursed pay were missing.         He also realized

that his co-passenger in seat No.21 was not around.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

                                                          5 5.        When he reached Goeragre he looked for his

belongings again but could not find them. He then left for his

residence. After sleeping for some time he woke up and went

to Tura with the intention of searching the bus once again. He

met the Depot Manager who informed that the bus had left for

Nanggalbibra   and   would   return   only   in   the   evening.

Therefore, he came back to his residence and went to the

Commandant’s office at 10.00 P.M. to inform him about the

loss of his revolver and money. When he reached the office of

the Commandant, too many people were present in the office

and, therefore, he could inform the Commandant about the

incident in question at about 12.00 P.M.

6.        On receipt of the information from the appellant,

Respondent No.3 who is the Commandant of the Battalion

forwarded his report on May 8, 1995 to Tura Police Station for

registering a case and accordingly a case was registered at

Tura Police Station under the provisions of the Indian Penal

Code. On May 12, 1995, the respondent was suspended from

service pending enquiry for loss of Rs.17,314/- and service

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

                                                                       6 revolver with ammunition.           A preliminary enquiry was held

with regard to the matter and thereafter the competent

authority   decided    to    take    steps   to    initiate    a   regular

departmental enquiry against the respondent.                  Accordingly,

the respondent was served with statement of charges and

called upon to offer his explanation.                 He offered his

explanation which was not found to be satisfactory by the

competent authority.         The competent authority thereafter

appointed Inquiry Officer to conduct departmental inquiry

against the appellant.

7.          During the course of departmental enquiry several

witnesses were examined in respect of the charges leveled

against the respondent. The respondent had also examined

his witnesses. At the conclusion of the departmental enquiry

the   enquiry   officer submitted        report    to the competent

authority   stating   that   the     charges      framed      against       the

respondent were duly proved. On careful consideration of the

report as well as records, the competent authority tentatively

agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. The competent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

                                                              7 authority forwarded a copy of the report of the enquiry officer

to the respondent along with letter dated September 18, 1995,

and called upon him to show cause as to why he should not

be discharged from serviced.     On receipt of the show cause

notice, the respondent submitted his explanation.              The

competent authority by an order dated January 1, 1996,

removed the respondent from service. Feeling aggrieved, the

respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector

General of Police, Western Range, Tura as provided by Rule 66

of the Assam Police Manual - Part III. The Inspector General

of Police (Training) dismissed the appeal by an order dated

May 13, 1996.        Thereupon the respondent invoked extra

ordinary jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226 of the

Constitution by filing Civil Rule No.4048 of 1996. The learned

Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition

by order dated October 5, 2002. Aggrieved by the judgment

delivered by the learned Single Judge, the respondent

preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati

High Court. The Division Bench upheld the finding recorded

by   the   learned   Single   Judge   that   misconduct   by       the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

                                                         8 respondent was satisfactorily proved.    However, the Division

Bench was of the view that the version of the respondent that

he had to travel by Meghalaya State Road Transport

Corporation night bus and lost his consciousness after taking

sweets offered by co-passenger was a mitigating circumstance

and, therefore, the punishment of removal from service

imposed on him was not commensurate with the gravity of the

proven misconduct.       In view of the said conclusion the

Division Bench has set aside the order removing the

respondent from service and remitted the matter to the

appellate authority, namely, the Inspector General of Police to

consider and inflict appropriate punishment, short of removal

from service, commensurate with the gravity of the proven

misconduct of the respondent, by the impugned judgment,

giving rise to the instant appeal.

8.         This Court has heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length and in great detail.    This Court has also

considered the documents forming part of the instant appeal.

The competent authority as well as the first appellate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

                                                            9 authority have concluded that grave misconduct committed by

the respondent is satisfactorily proved.     The said finding is

upheld by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court

while deciding the petition filed by the respondent under

Article 226 of the Constitution. On re-appreciation of evidence

adduced, during the course of the departmental inquiry

initiated against the respondent, the Division Bench has also

recorded a finding of fact that the respondent had committed

serious misconduct. The said finding is a finding of fact which

is not liable to be interfered with in the instant appeal.

9.          The next question which falls for consideration is

whether the competent authority was justified in removing the

respondent from service and whether the Division Bench of

the High Court was right in remitting the matter to the

Appellate    Authority   for   passing   appropriate    order    of

punishment short of removal.     The record would indicate that

the respondent was a senior police officer. He was instructed

by his Commandant to go to Shillong to disburse the pay in a

vehicle belonging to the department and along with him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

                                                          10 another police officer was also deputed for safe carriage of pay

to be disbursed to the Bn personal posted at Shillong.

Further, the respondent was issued 0.38 bore revolver with 12

rounds.   It is an admitted position that the respondent was

instructed to come back to Bn headquarters by the vehicle of

the department along with other police personnel but the

respondent disobeyed the instructions and traveled to Bn

headquarters in a bus wherein not only he lost cash of

Rs.17,314/- but also his service revolver with 12 rounds of

ammunition.    Under the circumstances the question arises

whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in

setting aside the order of removal of the respondent from

service and remitting the matter to the appellate authority,

namely, the Inspector General of Police to consider the

question of imposition of appropriate punishment, short of

removal from service, commensurate with the gravity of the

proven misconduct of the respondent. A court or a tribunal

while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record

reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not

commensurate with the proved charges.         In the matter of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

                                                             11 imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very

limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of

High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is

limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons.

The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case,

to consider the question in regard to the quantum of

punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well

settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under

Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment

unless   there    exist   sufficient   reasons   therefor.     The

punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

Appellate Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the

court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.               In the

impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have

been indicated as to why the punishment was considered

disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of

justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would

not suffice.   While considering the question of proportionality

of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of

departmental inquiry, the        court should    also take     into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

                                                          12 consideration, the mental set up of the delinquent, the type of

duty   to   be   performed   by   him   and   similar   relevant

circumstances which go into the decision making process. If

the charged employee holds the position of trust where

honesty and integrity are in-built requirements of functioning,

it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.

Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands.

The respondent belonged to a disciplined force.         He was

supposed to carry out instructions given to him by his

superior. Not only he flouted the instructions but conducted

himself in such a manner that he caused loss of part of pay to

be deposited with the exchequer and loss of service revolver

with ammunition which could be misused.        When a statute

gives discretion to the administrator to take a decision, the

scope of judicial review would remain limited.     The proved

charges clearly established that the respondent, who was a

police officer failed to discharge his duties with utmost

integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were

prejudicial to the exchequer and society. Even in cases where

the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

                                                          13 to be shocking to the conscience of the court, normally the

disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority should be

directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty.

The High Court in this case, has not only interfered with the

punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in a routine

manner but overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the

Appellate Authority to impose any other punishment short of

removal. By fettering the discretion of the Appellate Authority

to impose appropriate punishment for serious misconducts

committed   by   the   respondent,   the   High   Court   totally

misdirected itself while exercising jurisdiction under Article

226.   Judged in this background, the conclusion of the

Division Bench of the High Court cannot be regarded as

proper at all.    The High Court has interfered with the

punishment imposed by the competent authority in a casual

manner and, therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted.

10.       For the foregoing reasons the appeal succeeds. The

Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High

Court dated March 7, 2006 delivered in Writ appeal No.282 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

                                                                  14 2006 setting aside the order removing the respondent from

service is quashed. The direction given by the Division Bench

to the appellate authority, namely, the Inspector General of

Police to consider and inflict punishment, short of removal

from service, commensurate with the gravity of the proven

misconduct of the respondent is set aside. The order passed

by the competent authority removing the respondent from

service is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

                                 ......................................J.                                   (ALTAMAS KABIR)

                                 ......................................J.                                  (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI; MAY 09, 2008.