Paritosh K.Mukherjee - (1.) THIS writ petition was taken up for hearing for the first time on 4.9.1996 when this Court after hearing Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner directed to produce following decisions of Supreme Court, which are set out herein below :- (i) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454. (ii) Ranjeet Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2386. (iii) Union of India v. Parmanand, AIR 1989 SC 1185. (iv) Dr. B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, JT 1995 (8) SC 65.
(2.) TODAY, at the time of resume hearing Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner produced the aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court on the point as to whether Writ Court is entitled to interfere with the quantum of punishment if the punishment is disproportionate to the charge, as referred to in the aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court. In the instant case, the petitioner who was conductor, his services have been dismissed by order dated 2.2.1988. It appears from the charge-sheet dated 27.5.1987, which is written in Hindi and if translated in English will run as follows :- "That on 4.4.1987 Sri Praveen Kumar, Conductor came to Sri Ram Prasad, Senior Officer Incharge for signatures on a family chit pass for the journey of Karoli (Kela Devi). At that time Sri Ram Prasad, Senior Officer Incharge was busy in preparation of an answer to the Assembly question. Since the chit pass was against the departmental rules the Senior Officer Incharge refused to sign. After some time Sri Praveen Kumar, Conductor came with Sri Alok Kumar, Conductor S/o Sri M. P. Singh (under suspension) to the Senior Officer Incharge. At that time both of you were in a drunken state. Both of them accused the Senior Officer Incharge as well as Sri Panna Lal Junior Officer Incharge who was present there and used filthy language. By beating table and showing indiscipline they brought a very bad name to the department in full public gaze. Therefore, you are responsible for not performing your duties sincerely, compelling the officer Incharge to act against the departmental rules, against your conduct by consuming liquor, insulting your superior officers by abusing in filthy language, indiscipline and violating the rules and circulars of the department. The following are the documents in support of the aforesaid charge. 1. Reports of Sri Ram Prasad and Sri Panna Lal (copy enclosed). In view of the aforesaid reasons you are directed to submit your written statement within 15 days or before to this office, stating your defence in respect of each charge. You are also warned that in case your written statement is not received to the under signed within the aforesaid stipulated period then it will be deemed that you have nothing to say in respect of the aforesaid charges. Accordingly ex parte decision will be taken in the matter and the decision so taken will be implemented. You are also informed that in case you want to produce any witness in support of your defence in that event you may send his name and address in your written statement."
(3.) THE only point calls for consideration by this Court is as to whether High Court is entitled to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the quantum of punishment. In the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court on the said point, inter alia, has observed as follows :- "In a petition under Article 226, the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal over the findings of disciplinary authority. But where the finding is utterly perverse, the Court can always interfere with the same." In this connection. Supreme Court in the aforesaid case referred to a decision in the case of Union of India v. H. C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 (728), and in conclusion Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the following extent:- "Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order dated May 6, 1977, removing the appellant from service and the Order dated 31st January, 1978 of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh dismissing his appeal and the Order of the High Court dismissing his petition in limine are quashed and set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. His two increments with future effect shall be withheld. He should be paid 50% of the arrears of salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The period between the date of termination of service and reinstatement shall be treated for other purposes as on duty." ;