The Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs Const Sunil Kumarm in the case observed that, in exercise of the power of judicial review, the punishment imposed by disciplinary proceedings can only be interfered with if the same being ‘strikingly disproportionate’. The bench comprising of Justice M R Shah and Justice C T Ravikumar stated that even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment or penalty which as such being a prerogative of the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the CRPF Constable Sunil Kumar was being dismissed from service following a disciplinary proceeding. It has been held by the Rajasthan High Court, while allowing his writ petition that the order of penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. It has been ordered by the High Court that reinstatement of respondent in service with notional benefits. In an appeal, it has been noted by the court that the charges and misconduct which are proved against the Constable is of misbehaving with superior and for giving threats of dire consequences to the superior, under the influence of the said intoxication. Further, the misconduct of misbehaving with the superior or the senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF. Thus, weather a heinous offence or a less heinous offence has been committed by the member of the force as per Section 9 and Section 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings or the departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and or insubordination. The court observed while restoring the order of termination from service stated that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate and Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there being perversity or irrationality and there can be judicial review under Article 226 or Article 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The post SUPREME COURT: PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CAN BE INTERFERED WITH ONLY IF IT IS ‘STRIKINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE’ appeared first on The Daily Guardian.
