- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was found guilty of the misconduct by the disciplinary and appellate authorities and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on him. In the writ petition preferred against the said orders learned Single Judge maintained the order of punishment. Hence this appeal.
(2.) Having considered the entire material on record we find that the punishment imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Although 7 charges of misconduct were levelled against the appellant but in our opinion they are trifle in nature and penalty of removal from service so imposed on the appellant shocks our judicial conscience. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the question of proportionality of the punishment. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the penalty of removal from service is substituted to that of penalty of compulsory retirement. It is well settled that disciplinary and appellate authorities, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. However, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities shocks the conscience of the High Court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v/s. Ummed Singh [2001 (3) RLR 316] considered the ratio indicated in B.C. Charurbedi v/s. Union of India : (1995) 6 SCC 749 and reduced the punishment of removal from the service to that of compulsory retirement. In the instant case, the following charges were levelled against the appellant: - - (1). The appellant sought his transfer from New Delhi to the place near his home town to sort out his land dispute whereas there was no such land dispute. (2). The appellant submitted false Medical Certificate Slip in Connivance with Dr. D. Misra, the then Medical Officer - 14th Bn CRPF recommending the appellant 32 days rest at home. (3). The appellant took car diary of jeep No. 2 (Rgn No. 5576) and note down the figures used by the Commandant. (4). The appellant sought transfer projecting false and fabricated grounds of his wife's illness. (5). The appellant took interview with the Director General, CRPF and showed a false and fabricated copy of the application dated July 13, 1982 addressed to the Commandant -14th Bn CRPF Levelling various allegations against his OC Company. (6). The appellant was granted three months leave for treatment of his wife but on rejoining his duties he did not bring his wife. (7). The appellant proceeded on 60 days earned leave w.e.f. August 17, 1981 to October 16, 1981 by projecting false and fabricated reasons about his wife's sickness. Since the writ petition was filed as back as in the year 1984 and the instant special appeal is pending from 1994, we in order to shorten the litigation and to avoid any further legal expenses from both the sides feel just and proper to reduce the punishment of removal of appellant from service to that of compulsory retirement. The special appeal stands dispose of as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.;