http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/11/1995

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  736            1996 SCC  (1) 302  1995 SCALE  (6)465

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami. J.      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Heard counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave is  directed against the Order of  the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 9547/90 dated 12.8.1991.      The first  respondent was a police constable and he was removed  from   service  pursuant   to  a   duly   conducted departmental enquiry  by Order  dated  6.5.1985.  The  first respondent challenged  the order  of removal before the U.P. Public Services  Tribunal No.5,  Lucknow Bench. The Tribunal by  its   detailed  and  considered  order  dated  29.6.1990 declined to  interfere with the order of removal for reasons set out therein. Still aggrieved, the first respondent moved the  Allahabad   High  Court   under  Article   226  of  the Constitution of  India by  filing  W.P.  No.  9547  of  1990 challenging the  order of  removal as  confirmed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal.      Before the  learned Judge,  the order  of  removal  was challenged mainly  on the  ground that  the first respondent was not  given a  reasonable opportunity in the departmental enquiry. The  learned Judge rejected the above contention by observing that  ’the plea  of reasonable  opportunity is not open to the petitioner’ as the High Court was satisfied that full opportunity  was given  to the  petitioner. Further the High Court  concurred with  all the findings of the Tribunal rendered  on   the  charges   levelled  against   the  first respondent.      Strangely,  the   High  Court   interferred  with   the punishment of  removal, while  concurring with  the findings rendered  against   the  first  respondent  on  the  charges levelled against him, by observing as follows :-      "The Presiding  Officer of  the Tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    has passed  a  very  detailed  order  in      which he  enumerated  the  circumstances      under which  the inquiry  was conducted.      The enquiry officer found the petitioner      to have  absented from  duty on  several      occasions, totalling 251 days during the      year  1981-82  while  posted  at  police      station Ram Sanehi Ghat, 93 days in 1982      while   posted    at   police    station      Safdarjang and  from 28.2.84  onwards on      being  subsequently   posted  at  police      station Ram  Sanehi Ghat. The petitioner      has submitted  before  the  Tribunal  as      well as  here that  during all this long      period he  had fallen  ill and  he  sent      regular applications  for grant to leave      along with  the  medical  certifications      for grant  to such  proof was ever filed      by the petitioner before the Tribunal.      ****************************************      In the  present  case  the  only  charge      against  the   petitioner  was  that  he      absented  himself  from  duty  for  long      periods although it was his case that he      applied for  grant of  leave. Even if it      is assumed  that the petitioner, against      whom there  appears to  be no  charge of      misconduct of  grave nature,  is  proved      his absence  from duty  would not amount      to such  a grave  charge for  which  the      extreme  penalty  of  dismissal  may  be      imposed. In  view of  the fact  that the      petitioner  has  offered  not  to  claim      arrears  of   salary  as   well  as   he      assurance (sic) this Court that he would      discharge  his   duties  faithfully  and      sincerely this Court is of the view that      extreme  penalty   imposed  against  the      petitioner does  not  commensurate  with      the gravity  of the  charge, hence  this      writ petition  deserves  to  succeed  on      this point. However, it will be open for      the opposite parties to impose any minor      punishment against the petitioner.      In  view  of  what  has  been  indicated      hereinabove the  writ petition succeeds.      The order  of dismissal  passed  against      the petitioner  contained in  Annexure-3      is quashed.  The opposite  parties  will      re-instate  the   petitioner  on   duty.      However,  it   will  be   open  for  the      opposite parties  to  impose  any  minor      punishment    upon     the    petitioner      considering  the  charges.  It  is  made      clear  that   the  petitioner   will  be      entitled only  to extent  one fourth  of      amount as back wages."      We are  clearly of  the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its  jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with  the findings  of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court  failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a  police constable  and was  serving in  a  disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having notices the fact that the first  respondent has absented himself from duty without

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

level on  several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court’s  observation that  ’his absence from duty would not amount  to such  a grave  charge’. Even otherwise on the facts of  this case, there was no justification for the High Court to  interfere with  the punishment  holding that  ’the punishment does  not commensurate  with the  gravity of  the charge’ especially  when the  High Court  concurred with the findings of  the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out.      For all  these reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court in W.P.No.9547/90 and restore the order of the u.p. Public Services Tribunal, The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.