Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri S. K. Kajal, was employed as an Assistant Director in the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Goa for 30 years. On 09.01.2009, a charge-sheet was issued to him alleging misconduct of demanding illegal gratification. He was suspended and an inquiry was initiated. The petitioner did not remain present on the scheduled date for the inquiry, which proceeded ex-parte. The inquiry officer found the charges proved. The disciplinary authority, the Chief Executive Officer, by order dated 01.05.2013, imposed the major penalty of removal from service under Regulation 9(ix) of the KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003, observing that the charge was grave and the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed by order dated 06.08.2013, agreeing with the disciplinary authority's decision. The petitioner then challenged the appellate order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the matter and considered the submissions. The court noted that the petitioner had not participated in the inquiry and that the disciplinary authority had properly appreciated the evidence. The court held that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and that no procedural irregularity or perversity was shown. The court also found that the punishment of removal from service for demanding illegal gratification was not disproportionate. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Major Penalty - Removal from Service - The petitioner, an Assistant Director, was charged with demanding illegal gratification. The inquiry proceeded ex-parte as the petitioner failed to appear. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service under Regulation 9(ix) of KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003. The appellate authority confirmed the penalty. The High Court held that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority had properly appreciated the evidence and the punishment was not disproportionate. (Paras 2-8)
B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope - The court's interference with disciplinary proceedings is limited to cases of procedural irregularity or perversity. The court found no such infirmity in the present case. (Para 8)
C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - The court held that the punishment of removal from service for demanding illegal gratification is not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is sustainable in law and whether the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of removal from service.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- major penalty
- removal from service
- ex-parte inquiry
- appellate authority
- judicial review
- proportionality of punishment
- KVIC E (CCA) Regulations
- 2003
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 137
WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2014
Ms S. Bangera for the Petitioner; Mr S. N. Joshi with Ms Shweta S. Joshi for the Respondents
The Chief Executive Officer, Directorate of Vigilance, Khadi & Village Industries Commission; Khadi & Village Industries Commission; The Chairman, Directorate of Vigilance, Khadi & Village Industries Commission
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the appellate authority confirming the penalty of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the appellate authority and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dismissing his appeal against the penalty of removal from service imposed for demanding illegal gratification.
Previous Decisions
The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on 01.05.2013. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 06.08.2013.
Issues
Whether the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is sustainable in law.
Whether the punishment of removal from service is proportionate to the misconduct of demanding illegal gratification.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the inquiry was conducted ex-parte without proper opportunity and that the punishment was disproportionate.
The respondents argued that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity and that the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority had properly appreciated the evidence and that the punishment of removal from service for demanding illegal gratification was not disproportionate. The court's interference in disciplinary matters is limited to cases of procedural irregularity or perversity, which were not present.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 06.08.2013 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Directorate of Khadi & Village Industries, thereby conveying to the petitioner that his appeal filed before the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty of removal from service of the petitioner is disposed of as the appellate authority agreed with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty of 'removal from service' on the petitioner.
The disciplinary authority, i.e. the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 01.05.2013 came to the conclusion that the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner has been proved and established.
As the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the charge established against the petitioner is very grave, the punishment of penalty of 'removal from the service' of the petitioner was imposed in terms of Regulation No.9 (ix) of KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003.
Procedural History
On 09.01.2009, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. He was suspended. An inquiry proceeded ex-parte as the petitioner did not appear. The inquiry officer found the charges proved. On 01.05.2013, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner appealed, and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 06.08.2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003: Regulation 9(ix)
