STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. RAJ KISHORE YADAV AND ANR.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan
Altamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2006-06-20
Court Decision / Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal and restored the Disciplinary Authority’s order of dismissal; set aside the High Court’s modification and reinstatement order; no costs; Appeal allowed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of U.P. and Ors.

Respondents

Raj Kishore Yadav
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Pramod Swamp
• B.N. Jha
• Jatinder Kumar Bhatia

Counsels for Respondents

• Jitendra Mohan Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. RAJ KISHORE YADAV AND ANR. is a Supreme Court Civil Appeal arising from a High Court order in a disciplinary matter against a state employee. The Allahabad High Court, in a writ petition filed by the respondent, quashed the disciplinary order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits, while also muting the punishment to two increments stoppage with a cumulated effect. The appellant State challenges the High Court’s interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that Article 226 affords a limited jurisdiction to supervise administrative action and cannot substitute the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority where the evidence supports serious misconduct. The Court reviews whether the charges were properly framed and proved; five charges were framed, four proved beyond doubt, one not proved. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the charges are very serious and the findings are supported by the record, and that the High Court’s view that the acts amounted to mere mistakes reflects an error of judgment. It holds that the High Court’s modification fails the test of proper supervisory jurisdiction and is perverse. Accordingly, the Court restores the Disciplinary Authority’s dismissal order and dismisses reinstatement. The Civil Appeal is allowed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Interference in administrative actions under Article 226 is limited and cannot substitute findings where evidence supports the disciplinary authority.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the High Court exceeded its constitutional remit under Article 226 by substituting its own view for the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. The record shows five charges, four proved beyond doubt; the acts are serious misconduct. The High Court’s conclusion that the acts were mere mistakes and its order directing reinstatement with full benefits amounts to impermissible interference. The State urges that the Court should uphold the disciplinary order of dismissal to preserve administrative discipline and public confidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the High Court’s intervention is warranted where the punishment is harsh or disproportionate in view of the facts. They argue for leniency, noting errors or lighter misconduct that justify modifying the punishment to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and reinstatement with pecuniary and consequential benefits. They maintain that such relief balances justice with administrative efficiency and prevents undue hardship to the respondent.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

' ... A - B 1 ~ # STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. _V._ # RAJ KISHORE YADAV AND ANR. JUNE 20, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] ## _Constitution of India, 1950:_ ....... _Article 226-Jnterference by High Court with orders passed by competent_ c _authorities in disciplinary proceedings-Employee dismissed from serviceHigh Court setting aside dismissal order and directing his reinstatementHeld, the charges are very serious in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt-High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer_ D _and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed-On merits, High Court erred in modifying the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority-Judgment of High Court being perverse is set aside-Service Law-Dismissal from service._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1442 of2005. E From the Judgment and Order dated 21. 11.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1996. Pramod Swamp, B.N. Jha and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellant. Jitendra Mohan Sharma for the Respondents. F The Order of the Court was delivered by ## **ORDER** Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the G respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1505/1996 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein. The High Court by the impugned order modified the punishment by way of stoppage of two increments with H .... 63 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S C.R. A cumulative effect and quashed the order of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent herein. The High Court also ordered reinstatement with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. We have been taken through the charges framed against the respondent herein and also the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the B order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order passed in the Claim Petition. Five charges were framed against the respondent herein. The charges are very serious in nature. The charges No.1,2,3 and 5 have been proved beyond any doubt. Charge No.4 has not been proved. C C On a consideration of the entire materials placed before the authorities, they came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a Writ Petition was filed challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal, the High Court interfered with the order of dismissal on the ground that the acts complained of were sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the respondent herein and for that no punishment could be attributed D to the respondent. In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but the error of judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a settled law that the High Court has E limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious in nature and the F same have been proved beyond any doubt. We have also carefully gone through the Enquiry Report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In short, the judgment of the High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by G the High Court and restore the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service. It is ordered accordingly. The Civil Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed. H R.P.