LawforAll

Showing posts with label service matter - an Assistant Wireless Operator was dismissed for misconduct - dis-proportionate quantum of punishment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label service matter - an Assistant Wireless Operator was dismissed for misconduct - dis-proportionate quantum of punishment. Show all posts
Saturday, July 20, 2013

service matter - an Assistant Wireless Operator was dismissed for misconduct - dis-proportionate quantum of punishment = the punishment of dismissal from service for the kind of misconduct proved against the appellant appears to us to be grossly disproportionate. = while dismissal from service of the appellant is a harsh punishment the order for dismissal could be substituted by an order of reduction to the rank of a constable with the direction that while the appellant shall have the benefit of continuity of service he shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay or other financial benefits for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of his reinstatement against the lower post of constable. We are conscious of the fact that this Court could in the ordinary course remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order of punishment considered proper but we are deliberately avoiding that course. We are doing so because the order of dismissal of the appellant was passed in the year 2001. A remand at this distant point of time is likely to lead to further delay and litigation on the subject which is not in the interest of either party. We have, therefore, upon an anxious thought as to the quantum of punishment that is appropriate taken the un-usual but by no means impermissible course of reducing the punishment to the extent indicated above. 16. These appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms; with a further direction that the respondents shall do the needful expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of this order. No costs.

             published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40530         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA         ...