UNION OF INDIA AND ANRversusS.S. AHLUWALIA

                            UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                                    A
                                           v.
                                  S.S. AHLUWALIA

                                  AUGUST 24, 2007

                (G.P. MA THUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN,JJ.)                           B


           Service law :

            Reinstatement with consequential benefits-Order, validity of-Held:
      Order for reinstatement could be passed when employee is dismissed or C
      removed from service after initiation of disciplinary proceedings and said
      dismissal or removal is found to be illegal-On facts employee himself sought
      voluntary retirement and had actually been relieved-Thereafter, was no
      longer in service and had not done any work-Also no delay in accepting
      his request for voluntary retirement-Disciplinary proceedings concluded D
      against employee with imposing small punishment-Thus, case for
      reinstatement with consequential benefits not made out-Central Reserve
      Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 43(d)(i).

              Penalty-Imposition of, in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings-
      lnterference with-Held: ls limited-Court can interfere only when the penalty E
      ifl'!posed is shockingly dispropodionate to the charges proved-In such case
      court is to remit the matter to Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration-
      On facts, charges proved against employee and penalty of I 0% deduction
      from pension for one year imposed-Penalty imposed being small, no
      interference called for-Judicial Review.                      ·
                                                                                      F
             Respondent, employed with CRPF filed application seeking voluntary
      retirement with effect from 1.7.1993. Application was rejected. He then made
      representations for voluntary retirement which was accepted on 23.2.1994
      subject to the condition that the proceedings for imposing major penalty
      initiated against him would continue. Respondent was relieved from services     G
      on 2.3.1994. However, his retiral benefits were not released and was informed
      by order dated 12.5.1995 that it would be released on completion of
-1'   departmental inquiry. Inquiry was conducted and charges were proved, except
      for one. Union Public Service Commission imposed penalty of 10% deduction
      from his basic pension for one year. Competant Authority upheld the same.
                                          Jn                                          H
    378                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A Aggreived respondent filed writ petition for quashing the order dated
    12.5.1995, for release of retiral benefit and for directions to treat the            >-
    respondent as deemed to have yoluntarily retired with effect from 1.7.1993.
    Thereafter, respondent filed amendment application seeking quashing of the
    order retiring him and to reinstate him in service with all consequential
    benefits. Another writ petition was filed for quashing the order imposing the
B   penalty. The Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petitions. The order
    imposing penalty of 10% deduction in pension for one year was set aside and
    respondent was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The
    Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeal.

          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
c
            HELD: 1.1. The order for reinstatement can be passed where as a result
     of disciplinary proceedings initiated by an employer an employee is dismissed
     or removed from service and the said dismissal or removal is found to be
     illegal by a court of law. In the instant case, respondent had himself sought
D    voluntary retirement and had actually been relieved on 2.3.1994. Thereafter
     he was no longer in service and had not done any work. The Single Judge of
     High Court as also Division Bench of the High Court did not advert to this
     aspect of the matter. The Division Bench merely observed that had the
     appellants disposed of the matter of voluntary retirement of the respondent in
     1993 and had he been permitted to retire in that year itself he stood fair chance
E    of getting a re-employment which is wholly unsustainable in law. In the
     application moved by the respondent on 15.3.1993 he had sought voluntary
     retirement from 1.7.1993. This request was finally accepted on 23.2.1994
     and he was relieved on. 2.3.1994. As such there was not much delay in
     accepting the prayer of the respondent for voluntary retirement. The
F    disciplinary proceedings had finally concluded against the respondent with
    .imposition of small punishment In these circumstances, there was absolutely
     no ground for directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with
     continuity in service and all consequential benefits. (Para 6)
                                                                 (381-F-H; 382-A-B]

G          1.2. The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty
    as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere
    with the punishment only ifit finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate
    to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the          >-
    matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In
    an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser
H
                     U.O.l. v. S.S.AHLUWALIA[G.P.MATHUR,J.]                      379
     penalty. In the instant case, the penalty imposed upon the respondent was very      A
     small-10% deduction from pension for one year. Thus, there was hardly any
     occasion for the High Court to interfere with the order of penalty passed by
     the Competent Authority. However, having regard to the facts and
     circumstances of the case and especially to the fact that the penalty was a
     small one, that part of the order of the Single Judge as also of Division Bench
     is not interfered with. The directions issued for reinstatement of the              B
     respondent with all consequential benefits including salary and promotion are
     set aside. (Paras 7 and 8) (382-C-F]

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4247 of2006.

          From the Judgment and Final Order dated 11.1.2006 passed by the High           C
     Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 409/2002.

           T.S. Doabia, Sunita Shanna, Sushma Suri and Manpreet Singh Doabia
     for the Appellants.

           S.S. Ahluwalia Respondent-in-Person.                                          D

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           G.P. MATHUR, J. l. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred
     against the judgment and order dated 11.1.2006 of a Division Bench of Delhi E
     High Court by which the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants was
     dismissed and the judgment and order dated 20. 12.2001 of the learned Single
     Judge was affinned.

           2. The respondent S.S. Ahluwalia joined the Indian Anny on 28.6.1965
     as Commissioned Officer. In the year 1973 he was relieved from the army and         F
     he joined Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The respondent moved an
     application under Rule 43(d)(i) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955
     (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') seeking voluntary retirement with effect
     from 1.7.1993. The application moved by the respondent was rejected on
     12.7.1993. He gave representations on 30.7.1993 and 10.8.1993 for re-examination
     of his case and to accord sanction for his voluntary retirement. On                 G
     reconsideration of the matter the appellants accepted the prayer made by the
     respondent on 23.2.1994 subject to the condition that the proceedings for
-<   imposing major penalty initiated against him vi de memo dated 4.2 .1994 shall
     continue. The respondent submitted his representation on 12.9.1994 raising
     various pleas and prayed for withdrawal of the charge-sheet and proceedings         H
    380                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A   for imposition of major penalty. In the inquiry proceedings the respondent
    filed written statement of defence on 21.2.1994. The Inquiry Officer, after
    conducting a full inquiry and recording evidence, held that charge No. I was
    partly proved and charges Nos. II, III and IV were fully proved. The case
    of the respondent was referred to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),
B   who, after examination of the material on record, advised that the ends of
    justice would be met in case a penalty of 10% deduction from his basic
    pension for one year was imposed. The case was then referred to Ministry
    of Home Affairs (MHA) for approval of the Competent Authority for acceptance
    of the advice of the UPSC and award of punishment. The Competent Authority
    then imposed punishment of l 0% deduction from his pension for a period of
C   one year.

          3. After the application of the respondent for his voluntary retirement
    had been accepted by order dated 23.2.1994 he was actually relieved on
    2.3.1994. He made request for release of his retiral benefits but he was
    informed by communication dated 12.5.1995 that till the proceedings of
D   departmental inquiry were concluded his retiral benefits could not be released.

           4. The respondent then filed three writ petitions in the Delhi High Court.
    Writ Petition No. 637of1996 was filed praying for quashing of the order dated
    12.5.1995 and consequential release of the retiral benefits like pension,
    commuted pension, gratuity along with interest@ 14% per annum with effect
E   from 1.7.1993 till the date of actual payment and also for a direction to the
    appellants to treat the respondent as deemed to have voluntarily retired with
    effect from 1.7.1993 in accordance with Rule 43(d)(i) of the Rules. On 5.9.1998
    the respondent moved an amendment application for amending the Writ .
    Petition No. 637 of 1996 and in this a prayer was made that the order dated
F   23.2.1994 retiring the respondent be quashed and the appellants be directed
    to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits. Writ
    Petition No. 2169of1997 was filed for quashing of the order dated 17.3.1997
    by which a penalty was imposed for deduction ~f 10% pension for one year.
    The writ petitions were contested by the appellants herein by filing counter
    affidavits. The learned single Judge, by judgment and order dated 20.12.2001,
G   allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein, set aside the order
    imposing penalty of 10% deduction in pension for one year and also directed
    for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including
    salary and promotion. The appellants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which
    was dismissed by the Division Bench on 11.1.2006. It is these orders which
H   are subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.
                  U.0.1. v. S.S. AHLUWALIA [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                  381
     5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.S.                 A
Ahluwalia, respondent-in-person.

        6. There is no dispute that the respondent had moved an application
on 15.3.1993 under Rule 43(d)(i) of the Rules seeking voluntary retirement
from service with effect from 1.7.1993. This application was rejected on
12.7.1993. He made representations against rejection of his application on            B
30.7.1993 and 10.8.1993 and finally by order dated 23.2.1994 his request for
voluntary retirement was accepted subject to the condition that the proceedings
initiated against him for imposing major penalty vide memo dated 4.2.1994
shall go on. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was actually relieved
on 2.3.1994. Writ Petition No.637of1996 had been filed by the respondent              C
on 6.2.1996 wherein the relief sought was that a direction be issued to the
appellants to treat the respondent as deemed to have voluntarily retired with
effect from 1.7.1993 in accordance with Rule 43(d)(i) of the Rules and further
for quashing of the order dated 12.5.1995 and consequential release of his
retiral benefits. An amendment application was moved for amending the writ
petition on 5.9.1998 and here for the first time a relief was sought for quashing     D
the order dated 23 .2.1994 retiring the respondent and for a direction to reinstate
him in service with all consequential benefits. The learned single Judge did
not at all notice the fact that the request of the respondent for voluntary
retirement had actually been accepted on 23.2.1994 and he was actually
relieved on 2.3.1994. Thereafter he was no longer in service and had not done         E
any work. The learned Single Judge has merely observed that this was a case
of extreme harassment and thereafter passed the operative portion of the
order directing reinstatement of respondent in service with all consequential
benefits including salary and promotion. The order for reinstatement can be
passed where as a result of disciplinary proceedings initiated by an employer
an employee is dismissed or removed from service and the said dismissal or            F
removal is found to be illegal by a court of law. This was not a case here.
There was absolutely no ground on which an order for reinstatement with all
consequential benefits could be passed in favour of the respondent when he
had himself sought voluntary retirement and had actually been relieved on
2.3. l 994. The Division Bench of the High Court also did not advert to this          G
aspect of the matter. The Division Bench merely observed that had the
appellants disposed of the matter of voluntary retirement of the respondent
in 1993 and had he been permitted to retire in that year itself he stood fair
chance of getting a re-employment. The view taken by the Division Bench
is wholly unsustainable in law. In the application moved by the respondent
on 15.3.1993 he had sought voluntary retirement from 1.7.1993. This request           H
    382                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A was finally accepted on 23.2.1994 and he was relieved on 2.3.1994. As such           >-
    there was not much delay in accepting the prayer of the respondent for
    voluntary retirement. The disciplinary proceedings had finally concluded
    against the respondent with imposition of small punishment. In these
    circumstances there was absolutely no ground for directing reinstatement of
B   the respondent in service with continuity in service and all consequential
    benefits.

          7. The learned single Judge has also set aside the order by which a
    penalty of I 0% deduction in pension for one year had been imposed. This
    part of the order has also been affirmed by the Division Bench. It may be
C   mentioned here that charge No. I was found to be partly proved and charges
    Nos. II, III and IV were found to be fully proved. The scope of judicial review
    in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings
    is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds
    the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be
    proved. In such a case the court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary
D   authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in
    order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty. In the present
    case the penalty imposed upon the respondent was very small, namely, 10%
    deduction from pension for one year. Thus there was hardly any occasion
    for the High Cou1t to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the
E   Competent Authority. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances
    of the case and specially to the fact that the penalty was a small one being
     I 0% deduction from the pension for one year only, we do not want to interfere
    with that part of the order of the learned single Judge and also of the Division
    Bench.

F         8. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The directions issued for
    reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits including
    salary and promotion are set aside.

          9. No costs.

G N.J.                                                      Appeal Partly allowed.