Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ appeal filed by M/s Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (the appellant) against an order dated 05.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 36372/2015. The respondent, Smt. T. Nalini, a Junior Assistant in the Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006. After a departmental inquiry, she was found guilty and punished by order dated 21.11.2014 with withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, forfeiture of 50% of salary for the period of compulsory retirement (05.04.2006 to 12.01.2011), and treating the period of absence as unauthorized without wages. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition after exhausting departmental remedies. The learned Single Judge modified the punishment to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and set aside the forfeiture of salary, while upholding the treatment of the absence period as unauthorized. The appellant Corporation challenged this modification in the writ appeal. The Division Bench heard arguments from both sides. The court noted that the respondent had already undergone the period of compulsory retirement and that the punishment of withholding increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the misconduct. The court found no infirmity in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the modification of punishment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Proportionality of Punishment - Unauthorized Absence - The respondent, a Junior Assistant, was found guilty of unauthorized absence from 21.11.2004 to 04.04.2006 and was punished with withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, forfeiture of 50% salary for the period of compulsory retirement (05.04.2006 to 12.01.2011), and treating the earlier period as unauthorized absence without wages. The learned Single Judge modified the punishment to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and setting aside the forfeiture of salary. The Division Bench held that the punishment was disproportionate and the Single Judge's modification was just and proper, as the respondent had already suffered the period of compulsory retirement and the punishment was too harsh. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court reiterated that under Article 226, the High Court can interfere with the punishment if it is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge's exercise of discretion in modifying the punishment. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and forfeiture of 50% salary for the period of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent for unauthorized absence was disproportionate to the misconduct, and whether the learned Single Judge erred in modifying the punishment.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.08.2024 in WP No. 36372/2015, which modified the punishment to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and set aside the forfeiture of 50% salary.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- proportionality of punishment
- unauthorized absence
- withholding of increments with cumulative effect
- judicial review of punishment
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
