Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the removal of a government servant from service and subsequent judicial review of disciplinary proceedings. The respondent, initially appointed as a temporary Clerk in the Collectorate at Hardoi on December 4, 1973, faced removal in 1977, was later reinstated by court order on July 12, 1984, and was again placed under suspension on May 25, 1987 pending disciplinary enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report on December 5, 1987, holding five charges proved and recommending dismissal. The disciplinary authority passed an order of removal on January 6, 1988. The respondent's challenge before the Service Tribunal was dismissed, but the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed his writ petition on September 5, 1991, setting aside the removal. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The factual background revealed that charge 2 concerned sale of properties worth Rs.91,000 to private persons and purchase of properties worth Rs.10,000, which were admitted facts. The respondent claimed he had obtained oral permission for the sale and that the purchase was made from arrears of pay after reinstatement; he also asserted his father had purchased property in his name, necessitating his acting as vendor in a sale deed. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the removal order when at least charge 2 was admitted and proved, and whether oral permission could satisfy the requirements of Rule 24 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The Court also had to decide the permissible scope of judicial review over disciplinary punishment. The respondent's senior counsel argued that because charges 1, 3, 4 and 5 could not be established due to non-cooperation in the enquiry, it could not be predicted with certainty that the disciplinary authority would have imposed removal based on charge 2 alone. The State contended that the respondent had not cooperated, that charge 2 was admitted, and that the High Court erred in interfering with the punishment. The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 24, which requires a government servant to obtain previous knowledge or sanction of the appropriate authority for acquisition or disposal of immovable property, and observed that oral permission was not valid in law. The Court reiterated that in disciplinary matters, the court is not a court of appeal to examine the quantum or proportionality of punishment; it is for the disciplinary authority to decide the penalty based on proven misconduct. It further held that even if only one charge is proved and that charge is sufficient for imposition of penalty, the court would be loath to interfere. The order of removal was found not to cast any stigma that would disable the respondent from seeking other employment. The Court concluded that the High Court was wholly wrong in setting aside the removal order. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and upheld the removal, with no order as to costs. The Court also noted that the respondent had not been paid subsistence allowance during suspension and granted liberty to approach the Government, which would consider the claim according to rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Discipline - Judicial Review - U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, Rule 24 - The High Court set aside removal of a government servant; the Supreme Court reiterated that courts are not appellate authorities over disciplinary punishment and cannot examine proportionality of penalty; held that if even one charge is proved and sufficient for penalty, judicial interference is unwarranted; the High Court was wholly wrong in setting aside the removal order (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Government Servant Conduct - Property Transactions - U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, Rule 24 - The respondent admitted transactions of sale and purchase of immovable property without previous sanction; his explanation of oral permission was considered invalid as Rule 24 requires previous knowledge or sanction of the appropriate authority; held that violation of Rule 24 constituted proved misconduct sufficient to sustain removal (Paras Not mentioned). C) Service Law - Punishment - Removal from Service - U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, Rule 24 - The removal order was held not to cast stigma and did not disable the respondent from seeking other employment; the court upheld the removal based on the proved charge and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court order, with no costs; the respondent was given liberty to approach the Government for subsistence allowance during suspension to be considered as per rules (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the removal order when charge 2 regarding property transactions was admitted and proved; whether oral permission satisfies Rule 24 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956; whether court can interfere with disciplinary penalty.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; removal order upheld; no costs; respondent given liberty to approach Government for subsistence allowance during suspension according to rules.
Law Points
- court is not a court of appeal on quantum of punishment
- proportionality of penalty cannot be examined by court
- if one charge proved and sufficient court should not interfere
- previous knowledge or sanction required under Rule 24 U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules
- oral permission invalid
- removal not stigmatic
- subsistence allowance to be considered by government according to rules
