Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Swati Bhalchandra Nilegaonkar, was employed as an Assistant Nursing Officer at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital, Byculla, with about 26 years of service. She decided to contest the Assembly elections and submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 16.09.2009. Within a week, on 24.09.2009, she filed her nomination for the elections from Khed Alandi constituency, without waiting for the outcome of her retirement application. She contested the elections held on 13.10.2009. By letter dated 12.11.2009, she was informed that her request for voluntary retirement was under consideration and she was required to attend duties until sanction. She lost the elections and rejoined duties. A preliminary enquiry was conducted, and a Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 31.08.2010 was issued under Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. After a disciplinary inquiry, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on 06.02.2013. Her appeal was rejected on 24.07.2015. She filed Original Application No. 172/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 13.03.2019. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court held that the petitioner's act of contesting elections without prior sanction was a serious misconduct, and the penalty of removal was not disproportionate. The court noted that the petitioner had deliberately violated the rules and that the disciplinary authority had considered her long service but still found the misconduct grave. The court declined to interfere with the punishment, stating that the writ court's scope of review is limited and that the penalty was commensurate with the misconduct. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Removal from Service - Proportionality - Petitioner, an Assistant Nursing Officer with 26 years of service, contested Assembly elections without waiting for approval of her voluntary retirement application - Held that the penalty of removal from service is not disproportionate to the misconduct of violating Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, which prohibits government servants from contesting elections without prior sanction - The court found that the petitioner's conduct showed a deliberate disregard of rules and that the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner for contesting Assembly elections without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority is proportionate and whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application challenging the penalty.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Removal from service
- Proportionality of punishment
- Railway Services (Conduct) Rules
- 1966
- Rule 9
- Central Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1965
- Rule 14
- Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings
- Interference with punishment by writ court
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 109
WRIT PETITION NO. 4395 OF 2021
S.V. Gangapurwala, Acting C.J., Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Mr. Ajeet Manwani, Mr. Faisal Vora i/by A & A Legal for petitioner; Ms. Smita Thakur for respondent
Swati Bhalchandra Nilegaonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application against the penalty of removal from service imposed for misconduct under Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order and the penalty of removal from service, and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was removed from service for contesting Assembly elections without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority, which she alleged was disproportionate and unjust.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No. 172/2017 on 13.03.2019, upholding the penalty of removal from service and the appellate order dated 24.07.2015.
Issues
Whether the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner for contesting Assembly elections without prior sanction is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she had applied for voluntary retirement before contesting elections and that the penalty of removal was disproportionate given her 26 years of unblemished service.
Respondent argued that the petitioner deliberately violated Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 by contesting elections without waiting for sanction, and that the penalty was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the penalty of removal from service for violating Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 by contesting Assembly elections without prior sanction is not disproportionate. The petitioner's conduct showed a deliberate disregard of rules, and the disciplinary authority had considered her long service but still found the misconduct grave. The writ court's scope of review is limited, and the punishment was commensurate with the misconduct.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner assails judgment and order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 172/2017.
Petitioner was working with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital, Byculla on the post of Assistant Nursing Officer and had put in around 26 years of service.
Petitioner decided to contest the Assembly Elections and accordingly tendered application dated 16.09.2009 for voluntary retirement.
Within a week of submission of application for voluntary retirement, she filed nomination form for contesting the Assembly elections on 24.09.2009.
No decision was taken on her application for voluntary retirement and by letter dated 12.11.2009, she was informed that her request was under consideration and that she would have to attend duties till sanction of the same by the Competent Authority.
After conducting preliminary enquiry, Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 31.08.2010 was issued to Petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
Procedural History
Petitioner submitted voluntary retirement application on 16.09.2009, filed nomination on 24.09.2009, contested elections on 13.10.2009, lost and rejoined. Chargesheet issued on 31.08.2010 under Rule 9 of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Penalty of removal from service imposed on 06.02.2013. Appeal rejected on 24.07.2015. Original Application No. 172/2017 filed before Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissed on 13.03.2019. Writ Petition No. 4395 of 2021 filed before Bombay High Court, dismissed on 29.03.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966: Rule 9
- Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 14
