Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madhu S. Sadlapurkar, was employed as a watchman by the Commandant, A.C. Centre and School, Ahmednagar in 1966. In March 1983, he was issued a charge sheet for unauthorized absence for 21 days in February and March 1983. Subsequently, in August 1983, he was issued another charge sheet for unauthorized absence of 81 days between 16 March 1983 and 31 July 1983. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was imposed the penalty of removal from service with effect from 29 November 1983. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appropriate authority. He also filed Original Application No. 973 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's appeal, considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh. By an order dated 23 June 1998, the appellate authority confirmed the order of removal from service. The petitioner then filed Original Application No. 832 of 1998 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 29 February 2000. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Court noted that the details of the absence period in the second charge sheet showed absences of 6 days (16-21 March 1983), 9 days (23-31 March 1983), and 66 days (1 April to 31 July 1983), totaling 81 days. The Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal regarding the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority and the conclusion that the charges stood proved. The Court further held that the punishment of removal from service was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence for 81 days. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorized Absence - Penalty of Removal - The petitioner, a watchman, was removed from service for unauthorized absence of 81 days. The Court held that the punishment of removal was not shockingly disproportionate and declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 3-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 - Scope of Interference - The Court reiterated that the High Court under Article 226 does not sit in appeal over disciplinary findings and can only interfere if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence of 81 days is disproportionate and warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29 February 2000 in O.A. No. 832 of 1998 is upheld.
Law Points
- Proportionality of punishment
- judicial review under Article 226
- unauthorized absence as misconduct
- scope of interference with disciplinary findings
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (01) 101
WRIT PETITION NO. 6638 OF 2000
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani (Acting C.J.), M.S. Karnik, J.
Mr. A.S. Rao i/by Mr. S.P. Saxena for petitioner; Mr. Rui Rodrigues along with Mr. D.A. Dubey for respondent No.1/UOI
Shri Madhu S. Sadlapurkar
Union of India (through The Chief of Army Staff) and The Commandant, A.C. Centre & School, Ahmednagar
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 the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application against removal from service.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 29 February 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in O.A. No. 832 of 1998, and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was removed from service for unauthorized absence and his appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal upheld the removal.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner's earlier O.A. No. 973/1992 was disposed of directing the respondents to decide his appeal considering State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh. The appeal was dismissed on 23/6/1998. The subsequent O.A. No. 832/1998 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 29/2/2000.
Issues
Whether the penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence of 81 days is disproportionate and warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court under Article 226 does not sit in appeal over disciplinary findings and can interfere only if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The punishment of removal from service for unauthorized absence of 81 days was not shockingly disproportionate.
Judgment Excerpts
We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal as regards the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved.
The punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence for 81 days.
Procedural History
The petitioner was employed as a watchman in 1966. In March 1983, he was issued a charge sheet for unauthorized absence for 21 days. In August 1983, he was issued another charge sheet for unauthorized absence of 81 days. After a disciplinary inquiry, he was removed from service on 29/11/1983. He filed an appeal, which was initially not decided. He filed O.A. No. 973/1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the respondents to decide his appeal considering State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh. The appeal was dismissed on 23/6/1998. He then filed O.A. No. 832/1998, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 29/2/2000. He filed the present writ petition on 29/2/2000.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
