Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shivdas Dodku Borkar, was a Junior Clerk in the District Court, Nagpur, and was posted at Narkhed. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on nine charges, including habitual absence from duty, leaving the court hall without permission, negligence in work, and insubordination. The Enquiry Officer found all charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority, the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, imposed the punishment of removal from service by order dated 29.4.2000. The petitioner's administrative appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28.8.2000. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence on record and found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the petitioner had admitted to some of the charges and that the witnesses had supported the charges. The court also considered the argument that the punishment was disproportionate but held that the charges were serious and the punishment of removal was not shockingly disproportionate. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of removal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Misconduct - Habitual Absence and Negligence - The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, was charged with habitual absence from duty, leaving court without permission, and negligence in work. The Enquiry Officer found charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The High Court held that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and the punishment was not disproportionate. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Interference with Punishment - The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, can interfere with the punishment only if it is shockingly disproportionate or if the findings are perverse. In this case, the charges of misconduct were serious and proved, and the punishment of removal was not disproportionate. (Paras 11-15)
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 on facts, and whether the punishment of removal is proportionate to the charges proved.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- misconduct
- removal from service
- judicial review
- proportionality of punishment
- natural justice
- evidence in departmental enquiry
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 86
Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2001
P. B. Majmudar, A. P. Bhangale
Mr I. S. Charlewar for petitioner; Mr P. D. Kothari, AGP for respondent no. 1; Mr S. V. Manohar, Senior Advocate for respondent no.2
Shivdas son of Dodku Borkar
The District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur; The Registrar, High Court (Appellate Side), Mumbai-32
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of removal from service in disciplinary proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order of removal from service dated 29.4.2000 and the dismissal of his administrative appeal dated 28.8.2000.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was removed from service on charges of misconduct including habitual absence, negligence, and insubordination.
Previous Decisions
Disciplinary Authority (District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur) passed order of removal on 29.4.2000; Appellate Authority dismissed appeal on 28.8.2000.
Issues
Whether the order of removal from service is sustainable in law and on facts.
Whether the punishment of removal is proportionate to the charges proved.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and not based on evidence, and that the punishment was disproportionate.
Respondents argued that the charges were proved based on evidence, and the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court in writ jurisdiction will not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be interfered with unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. In this case, the charges of habitual absence, negligence, and insubordination were proved, and the punishment of removal was not disproportionate.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of this petition, the petitioner, who was serving as a Junior Clerk and at the relevant time was attached to the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narkhed, District Nagpur has challenged order of his removal from service dated 29.4.2000 in Departmental Enquiry No. 13/99 conducted by the District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur/Disciplinary Authority.
The petitioner was initially appointed in July 1991 as a Junior Clerk in the Office of District & Sessions Judge, Chandrapur.
Nine charges were framed against the petitioner which read as under: ...
Procedural History
Petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in July 1991. Transferred to Nagpur in March 1999 and posted at Narkhed. Disciplinary proceedings initiated; memorandum dated 4.8.1999 served with articles of charge. Enquiry Officer found charges proved. Disciplinary Authority passed order of removal on 29.4.2000. Administrative appeal dismissed on 28.8.2000. Petitioner filed writ petition in 2001. High Court dismissed petition on 24.1.2012.
