The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated April 8, 2024, passed in W.P.A. by the learned Single Judge vide which the learned judge had dismissed the writ petition, held that Courts can interfere only if the quantum of punishment is so disproportionate to shock the conscience of the Court. Even such a scenario, Courts are required to leave the quantum of punishment to be decided by the employer and not substitute the quantum of punishment by a quantum fixed by the Court.
Brief Facts:
The appellant as the writ petitioner assailed an order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellant was constrained to leave his post on November 7, 2007. The appellant was constrained to do so given the serious medical condition of his wife. His wife was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that no Court of Enquiry was held against the appellant, although the charge was one of desertion. He argued that the charge of desertion cannot be levelled in view of the fact that the appellant did not desert the police force. In any event, the alleged desertion was not for a period in excess of 60 days. He contended that since the appellant did not wilfully flout any order of the authorities, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the appellant as a Constable of the Central Reserved Police Force was governed by the provision of the Central Reserved Police Force Act, 1949 and the rules framed thereunder. Since the appellant was on unauthorized leave for the period from November 7, 2007, to December 8, 2007, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In such a disciplinary proceeding, the appellant was found guilty and was, therefore, removed from service. She argued that the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding pleaded guilty. In any event, according to her, the quantum of punishment is in the domain of the employer.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the Charge in the departmental proceeding was one of absence without intimation to the competent authority. During the enquiry as also in the disciplinary proceeding, appellant accepted the charge and pleaded guilty.
The Court observed that it cannot be said in the facts of the present case that the disciplinary authority was acting without jurisdiction. Neither can it be said that the appellate authority or the revisional authority acted without jurisdiction. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice is not the case run by the appellant. The proportionality of the punishment is one of the issues raised by the appellant. The Court said that the quantum of punishment is within the domain of the employer. Courts must be extremely slow to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding. However, Courts can interfere only if the quantum of punishment is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. Even such a scenario, Courts are required to leave the quantum of punishment to be decided by the employer and not substitute the quantum of punishment by a quantum fixed by the Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the Quantum of punishment imposed given the charges proved is not disproportionate.
Case Title: Gouri Sankar Das vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak and Hon’ble Justice Shabbar Rashidi
Case No.: M.A.T. 847 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rabindra Kumar Jaiswal
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Chandreyi Alam