- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mnkherjee, J. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of termination dated 30- 10-1985, passed by the respondent No. 4, being disciplinary authority, Assistant Director, Regional Research Institute (Ayurveda ). Lucknow and appellate orders dated 20-1-1996 and 20-10-1986, passed by the respondent No. 5, being Assistant Director (Administration), Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha, New Delhi, filed as Annexures-6, 8 and 11 to the writ petition.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was dismissed from service on establishment of guilt, on the basis of charge-sheet by order dated 30-10-1985. Thereafter, when the petitioner preferred an appeal, the appellate authority, being respondent No. 5, by his order dated 20-1-1986, has, however, inter alia, came to conclusion that the penalty of dismissal from the services, imposed upon the appellant by the respondent No. 4 was disproportionate to the charges against the appellant. Although, the appellate authority upheld the findings of the disciplinary authority to the effect that the appellant (the petitioner herein) was guilty of the charges framed against him in disciplinary case, but, set aside the penalty of dismissal from services with effect from 30-10-1985, imposed on the petitioner, having regard to the gravity of the charges proved against him.
(3.) HAVING head Sri B. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. P. Shahi, counsel for the respondent-authorities at some length, this Court is of the view that the appellate authority has approached the case from proper angle, as in view of catena of decisions, particularly in the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454, which has been subsequently followed in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and otters, AIR 1987 SC 238o, it has been held that the "penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. " In the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (supra), their Lordships, Hon'ble A. P. Sen and M. N. Venkatacbalaliah, JJ. had followed the judgment of House of Lords in the case of Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL ). In this judgment Lord Deplock, inter alia, observed that "anything disproportionate should be discarded. ";