Holding

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was grossly disproportionate and substituted it with reduction in rank, while affirming the finding of misconduct.

Summary

The appellant, an Assistant Wireless Operator in the Delhi Police, was charged with misconduct for refusing to open a locked cabin, shouting at an inspecting officer, not being in uniform, and snatching a log‑book. A disciplinary inquiry found him guilty and dismissed him; the dismissal was upheld by the appellate authority, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court held that the findings of misconduct were not perverse, but the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court substituted the dismissal with reduction to the rank of constable, granting continuity of service but denying arrears of pay for the period of dismissal. The Court also noted that the appellant's false accusation of casteist abuse, though serious, did not warrant leniency. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, directing the respondents to implement the reduced punishment within three months.

Issues considered

The disciplinary authority's finding of misconduct was perverse or not.
Whether dismissal from service was a proportionate punishment for the alleged misconduct.
Whether the doctrine of proportionality permits judicial interference with the quantum of punishment.
The impact of the appellant's false caste‑based accusation on the appropriate punishment.
Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and tribunal can be disturbed on grounds of disproportionality.

Legislation cited

Subjects

service lawdisciplinary inquirymisconductproportionalitydismissalreduction of rankfalse accusationcaste discriminationpolice discipline

Judgment

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 752

A JAi BHAGWAN
v.
COMMR. OF POLICE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.5162-5163 of 2013)
JULY 5, 2013
B
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

Service Law:
~ ..
c Disciplinary inquiry - On the charges of misconduct -
Punishment of dismissal from service - Appellate authority,
Administrative Tribunal as well as High Court confirming order
of disciplinary authority - Held: There is nothing perverse
about the finding as regards the charge of misconduct - But
the punishment of dismissal from service for the kind of 1-
D
misconduct alleged, is disproportionate - However, the false
accusation on the part of the delinquent against his superior
officer of having used casteist abuses to humiliate him, the
case does not call for leniency - Hence, in view of totality of
the circumstances, order of dismissal substituted to order of
E reduction of rank, with direction that he would have benefit of

F
continuity of service, but would not be entitled to arrears of pay
or other financial benefits for the period· between the date of
dismissal and date of reinstatement on the lower post.

Disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the
.. .
appellant on the charge of misconduct. It was alleged that
when the appellant was posted as an Assistant Wireless
Operator, was provided with a cabin. When an Inspector
checked the cabin, he found the cabin locked and when
G he asked the appellant to open the door of the cabin,
appellant shouted at him. The Inspector also found the
appellant not in proper uniform and that appellant also
snatched the log-book from the Inspector. Disciplinary
authority passed order of dismissal from service. The
H 752
JAi BHAGWAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 753

~ appellate authority, Administrative Tribunal as well as A
High Court confirmed the order of the Disciplinary
Authority. Hence the present appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
8
HELD: 1. The charges framed against the appellant
have been held proved by the disciplinary authority, the
appellate authority and even by the Tribunal concurrently.
• >- The High Court reviewed those findings and found
nothing perverse about the same. There is in that view
~
no room for interference of this Court on that account. c
[Para 6] [758-F-G]

2.1. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment
to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily
rest in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An D
-~ authority sitting in appeal over any such order of
punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue
regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it is
entitled to examine whether the charges have been
satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is E
challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court,
the exercise of discretion by the competent Authority in

.. +
determining and awarding punishment is generally
respected except where the same is found to be so
outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the
F
misconduct that the Court considers it to be arbitrary in
that it is wholly unreasonable. The superior Courts and
the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which
has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of
. ......, judicial review. A punishment that is so excessive or
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the G
conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even
when Courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere
with the quantum of punishment. [Para 9] [760-A-E]

H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611: 1988
(1) SCR 512; Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development
Corporation limited (2003) 8 SCC 9; Union of India vs.
Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549;
Ex-Naik Sardar Singh vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 213:
B 1991 (2) SCR 676; Om Kumar vs. Union of India (2001) 2
sec 386: 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 693- relied on.
2.2. In the instant case, the punishment of dismissal
from service for the kind of misconduct proved against
C the appellant is grossly disproportionate. There is no
allegation that the appellant had manhandled the police
Inspector who had gone to check the cabin. Delay of 10
minutes in opening the cabin door, which according to
the appellant was open but had got stuck because of
humidity leading to expansion of the wooden frame, was
D not a matter that ought to have led to the appellant's
dismissal after he had served the police force for over 10
years. Even assuming that the version given by the
appellant was not acceptable, the same did not constitute
a misconduct of a kind that would justify the appellant's
E dismissal from service leading to forfeiture of his past
service. That the appellant was not in uniform may also
be breach of discipline calling for administrative action
against him but not so severe as to throw him out of the
police force. [Para 13] [761-G-H; 762-A-C] ...
F
Ram kishan vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 157: 1995
(3) Suppl. SCR 251 - relied on.

2.3. But in view of the fact that the appellant had
falsely accused the Inspector of having used casteist
G abuses to humiliate him which allegation on an inquiry
was found to be totally false, does not call for leniency.
It is obvious that the appellant had tried to use the caste
card only to escape punishment for the misconduct and
indiscipline committed by him. An allegation like the one
H made by the appellant could have resulted in
JAi BHAGWAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 755

~· prosecution and dismissal of the superior officer from A
service. [Para 14] [762-D-F]

2.4. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, while
dismissal from service of the appellant is a harsh
punishment, the order for dismissal could be substituted
8
by an order of reduction to the rank of a constable with
the direction that while the appellant shall have the benefit
of continuity of service, he shall not be entitled to any
~ J. arrears of pay or other financial benefits for the period
between the date of dismissal and the date of his
reinstatement against the lower post of constable. [Para C
15] [762-F-H]

Case Law Reference:
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 251 relied on Para 7
D
1988 (1) SCR 512 relied on Para 10
(2003) 8 sec 9 lrelied on Para 11
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549 relied on Para 12
E
1991 (2) SCR 676 relied on Para 12
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 693 relied on Para 12

- t CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5162~5163 of 2013.

From the Judgment & Order dated 21.10.2010 of the High
F

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 5450 of 2005 and
Order dated 18.02.2011 in Review Petition No. 72 of 2011 in
W.P. (C) No. 5450 of 2005.
G
Arun Bhardwaj, S.S. Shamshery, Bhakti Vardhan (for Dr.
Kailash Chand) for the Appellant.

Chahar, Gargi Khanna, D.S. Mahar, Anil Katiyar for the
Respondents.
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
r

T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise out of an order
dated 21st October 2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi
B whereby Writ Petition (Civil) No.5450 of 2005 filed by the
appellant challenging his dismissal from the post of Assistant
Wireless Operator has been dismissed. An order dated 18th
February 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed Review
Petition No.72/2011 filed by the appellant has also been
"' ,.
c assailed by the appellant.
3. The appellant was posted as an Assistant Wireless
Operator at Patel Nagar Police Station, Delhi. A cabin was
provided to him for that purpose. On the night intervening 28/
D 29th July 2001 when Inspector Harjeet Singh went for checking
the cabin used by the appellant he found the same locked from 1-
inside. The Inspector knocked at the door but got no response
from within the cabin. He then knocked the door harder
whereupon, the appellant shouted at him from inside saying,
"KYA DARWAJE KO TOREGA BE" (Are you determined to
E
break the door). When the door was eventually opened by the
appellant, the Inspector found him wearing plain civilian clothes.
He asked the appellant the reason for not being in proper
uniform to which the appellant replied that he liked to dress like + ....
that only. The appellant also refused to give the log book to the
F Inspector when asked and snatched the same from him when
the Inspector picked it up from the table. The appellant was, in
the above circumstances, charged with misconduct. The charge
read as under:

G "/, lnspr. Anil Dureja, DE Cell. Delhi charge you HG Jai
Bhagwan, No. 1212/Commn. That while discharging
operator Duty at Radio a Radio Station P.S. Patel Nagar
on the intervening night 281297.2001 from 2000 hrs. to
0800 hrs. lnspr. Harjeet Singh who was night ctwcking
H officer, approached for checking at the door of wireless
JAi BHAGWAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 757
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
'y
cabin at 0035 hrs, The cabin was found tocked from A
inside. The Inspector knocked the door with little force,
you HG Jai Bhagwan shouted from inside in a very
undisciplined manner "kya darwaje ko forego be" you
were also found in plain clothes and when asked the
reasons for the same you replied that you would like this B
only. You also refused to give the log book when asked
to do so snatched the log book from him which the later
had picked up from the table. You made irrelevant
\ :;_
transmission on District No at 0130 hrs which aggravated
your misconduct. c
The above act of misbeaviour and misconduct on
the parl of you HG (AWO) Jai Bhagwan No. 1212/Gomn.
Renders you liable for punishment under Section 21 D.P.
Act read with Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal)
,;~ Rules, 1980." D

4. An inquiry followed in which the charges were held
proved. The appellant found guilty and was dismissed from
service by an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 29th
March 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant E
preferred an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority
which too failed and was dismissed on 9th January 2003. The

.. • appellant then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
for redress but remained unsuccessful even there. He next
approached the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.5450 F
of 2005 before whom he urged five distinct grounds against the
order of dismissal. It was firstly urged by the appellant that a
copy of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the DCP
Communication and relied upon by the Inquiry Officer was
- -· never supplied to him thereby causing prejudice to the
appellant. It was secondly urged that Inspector Harjeet Singh
had improved upon his version inasmuch as the narrative given
G

by him in the first report and that given in the second reportwere
materially different. Thirdly, it was contended that DCP
Communication could not act as the Disciplinary Authority
H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A inasmuch as it was he who had conducted the fact finding
inquiry that gave rise to a likelihood of bias. The fourth
submission urged on behalf of the appellant before the High
Court related to the appellant's version that he was medically
advised against wearing the police uniform on account of some
B kind of skin allergy. It was lastly contended that the allegations
that he was sleeping inside the wireless cabin was
unsupported by any evidence and that the punishment of
dismissal from service awarded to him was in any case much
Jo; '
too harsh, unreasonable and disproportionate to the gravity of
c the misconduct, to be countenanced by the Court.
5. The High Court examined each of these contentions
and rejected the same by an order that is impugned in the
-
present appeals. The High Court took pains to look into the
evidence on record to find out whether there was any perversity
D in the view taken by the disciplinary authority, the appellate
~-
authority, or the Tribunal and found none. Even on the question
of quantum of punishment, the High Court held that the petitioner
had no case inasmuch as the incident in question was one of
gross indiscipline and the penalty of dismissal from service
E was justified.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and perused the orders under challenge. The charges
framed against the appellant have been held proved by the • ..
F disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and even by the
Tribunal concurrently. The High Court reviewed those findings
and found nothing perverse about the same. There is in that
view no room for our interference on that account. In fairness
to learned counsel for the appellant we must mention that even
he did not make any serious attempt to assail the concurrent J._ -
G
findings of fact recorded against the appellant. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in affirming the said findings.

7. What was argued by learned counsel for the appellant
with considerable tenacity was the dis-proportionality of the
H quantum of punishment imposed upon the appellant. It was
JAi BHAGWAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 759
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
contended that the charges against the appellant were limited A
to using rude language against a superior officer who had
come to check the wireless cabin provided to the appellant. The
fact that the appellant was not in proper uniform or took a little
more time than necessary in opening the door also did not
"' materially add to the gravity to the misconduct, if any. Dismissal B
from service for such a minor act of misdemeanor was
according to learned counsel totally unreasonable and
• > disproportionate even assuming that the charges had been
satisfactorily proved. Relying upon the decision of this Court in
Ram kishan v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 157 it was c
contended that the delinquent was in that case also charged
with an act like the one alleged against the appellant. This Court
had, however, stepped in to set aside the order of dismissal
passed by the disciplinary authority and reduced the punishment
to stoppage of two increments only. It was urged that a similar
-> order in the instant case would meet the ends of justice.
D

8. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the
conduct of the appellant was highly objectionable and
unbecoming of any one serving in the police force where the
need for maintaining discipline is paramount. Any leniency E
towards those responsible for such misconduct was, according
to the learned counsel, bound to encourage others to commit
~
~ similar or more serious acts of indiscipline and misconduct
which will not be in public interest as it is bound to undermine
discipline as a value, erode the efficacy of the police force and F
shake the confidence of the people in its efficiency. It was also
submitted that the appellant had not only sent out an
unwarranted message on the wireless regarding the incident
but had gone to the extent of making a false ~ccusation against
-· _.... the Inspector, which aggravated the appellant's misconduct G
wholly unbecoming of a police officer. A false charge
implicating his superior for using casteist remarks was a
serious matter. Dismissal from service, in that view was the
only punishment which the appellant deserved and with which
this Court ought not to interfere. H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 9. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be
awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily rest in the
discretion of the disciplinary (lUthority. An authority sitting in
appeal over any such order of punishment is by all means
entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of
B punishment as much as it is entitled to examine whether the
charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such
order is challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court
the exercise of discretion by the competent Authority in
determining and awarding punishment is generally respected
c except where the same is found to be so outrageously
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that the Court
considers it be arbitrary in that it is wholly unreasonable. The
superior Courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of
proportionality which has been gradually accepted as one of
the facets of judicial review. A punishment that is so excessive
0 -Ci.
or disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience
of the Court is seen as unacceptable even when Courts are
slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of
punishment. The law on the subject is well settled by a series
E of decisions rendered by this Court. We remain content with
reference to only some of them.

10. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of/ndia (1987) 4 SCC 611,
this Court held that the doctrine of proportionality, as part of the
concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect
F which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court-
Martial, if the decision even as to the sentence is in defiance
of logic, then the quantum of sentence would not be immune
from correction. Irrationality and perversity, observed this Court,
are recognized grounds of judicial review. The following
G passage is apposite in this regard:

"the doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of
judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect
which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the
·Court-Martial, if the decision even as to sentence is an
H
JAi BHAGWAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 761
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
in defiance of logic, then the quantum of sentence would A
not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity
are recognized grounds of judicial review".

11. Similarly, in Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism
-'~ Development Corporation limited (2003) 8 SCC 9, this Court, B
following Ranjit Thakur's case (supra) held:

"... a court sitting in an appeal against a punishment
imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally
' ,. substitute its own conclusion on penalty. However, if the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the C
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court
then the court would appropriately mould the relief either
by directing the disciplinary! appropriate authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation
it may make an exception in rare cases and impose D
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support
thereof It is also clear from the above noted judgments
of this court, if the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the
misconduct proved against the delinquent officer, then E
the court would interfere in such a case."

12. Reference may also be made to the decisions of this
Court in Union of India v. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, Ex-
Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 213 and
F
Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386, which
reiterate the same proposition.

13. Coming to the case at hand we are of the view that
the punishment of dismissal from service for the kind of
,..._. __,, misconduct proved against the appellant appears to us to be G
grossly disproportionate. There is no allegation that the
appellant had manhandled the police Inspector who had gone
to check the cabin. Delay of 10 minutes in opening the cabin
door, which according to the appellant was open but had got
stuck because of humidity leading to expansion of the wooden H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A frame, was not a matter that ought to have led to the appellant's
dismissal after he had served the police force for over 10 years.
Even assuming that the version given by the appellant was not
acceptable the same did not constitute a misconduct of a kind
\
that would justify the appellant's dismissal from service leading
B to forfeiture of his past service. That the appellant was not in -..
uniform may also be breach of discipline calling for
administrative action against him but not so severe as to throw
him out of the police force. The analogy drawn by the appellant
in this case and that of Ram Kishan's case (supra) is not, .II '

c therefore, wholly misplaced. The delinquent in that case too was
charged with misbehaviour with his superior leading to his
dismissal from service which was found by this Court to be
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct calling for
moderation.
D 14. Having said that we cannot ignore the fact that the
appellant had falsely accused the Inspector of having used ~-
casteist abuses to humiliate him which allegation on an inquiry
was found to be totally false. It is obvious that the appellant had
tried to use the caste card only to escape punishment for the
E misconduct and indiscipline committed by him. There is no
manner of doubt that an allegation like the one made by the
appellant could have resulted in his prosecution and dismissal
of the superior officer from service. The appellant's case in that
view is not on all four corners of Ram Krishna to call for such ii ....
F leniency as was shown to Ram Krishna.

15. In the totality of these circumstances, we are of the view
that while dismissal from service of the appellant is a harsh
punishment the order for dismissal could be substituted by an
G
order of reduction to the rank of a constable with the direction
that while the appellant shall have the benefit of continuity of
..... ..._

service he shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay or other
financial benefits for the period between the date of dismissal
and the date of his reinstatement against the lower post of
constable. We are conscious of the fact that this Court could
H in the ordinary course remit the matter back to the disciplinary
JAi BHAGWAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 763
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
authority for passing a fresh order of punishment considered A
proper but we are deliberately avoiding that course. We are
doing so because the order of dismissal of the appellant was
passed in the year 2001. A remand at this distant point of time
is likely to lead to further delay and litigation on the subject
which is not in the interest of either party. We have, therefore, s
upon an anxious thought as to the quantum of punishment that
is appropriate taken the un-usual but by no means
impermissible course of reducing the punishment to the extent
indicated above.

• 16. These appeals are accordingly allowed in the above C
terms; with a further direction that the respondents 'shall do the
needful expeditiously but not later than three months-from the
date of this order. No costs. · ·

_)- Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals partly allowed. D

••
'.
,.
. -~~,

•• ~--, < •'

.-.,1