Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1072120/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10721 OF 2008
======================================
I.
H. MAJOTHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & ANR. - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
Mr.
Sikander Saiyed for Petitioner(s).
Ms. V. S. Pathak, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1-2.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 27/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER The
present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 23rd April, 2008 at Annexure-A whereby the
punishment of deduction of an amount of Rs.500/- per month from the
pension of the petitioner for a period of two years is imposed.
2. The
facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner was facing a
departmental inquiry as well as criminal case for misappropriation of
Rs.3,939/- while working as a Talati-cum-Mantri. It is averred that
the criminal case has resulted in his acquittal, though some
proceedings are pending before the learned Sessions Judge. As
reflected in the impugned order, the departmental inquiry was also
conducted and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the
impugned decision has been taken.
3. Mr.
Sikander Saiyed, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that
no opportunity of personal hearing has been afforded to the
petitioner and the principles of natural justice have been violated
and therefore, the impugned order is bad and illegal. He has further
tried to emphasis that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been
acquitted and holding of the departmental inquiry was only with a
view to cause harassment and hardships to the petitioner. He,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set
aside.
4. As
it transpires from the impugned order itself, the petitioner may have
been acquitted in the criminal case by the trial Court, but,
proceedings are pending before the learned Sessions Court. It also
transpires from the impugned order itself that the departmental
inquiry was held and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry
Officer, the impugned decision has been taken. It also appears that
before imposing the punishment upon the petitioner, a show cause
notice dated 6th March, 2007 has also been given to the
petitioner and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner had also given
his reply on 10th April, 2007. Therefore, after
considering all these aspects, the impugned order has been passed and
the submissions that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the
petitioner and the rules of principles of natural justice have been
violated, are misconceived.
5. In
that view of the matter, it is well settled that normally, the Court
should not interfere in the quantum of punishment, as observed by the
Honourable Apex Court in a catena of decisions. The
Honourable Apex Court, in its judgement in the case of L&T
Komatsu Ltd. vs. N. Udayakumar,
reported in (2008) 1 SCC 224,
referring to the earlier judgement in the case of M.P.
Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma,
reported in (2005) 3 SCC 401,
has observed thus:
…..
Similarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the
punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed, is
shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. …..
In
this very judgement, the Honourable Apex Court has also observed as
under:
In
recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps
well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of
the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted
by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the
framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism
that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into
misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is
essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the
legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the
legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled
and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of
mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of
the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable
situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority,
predictability and respectability. (See Kerala Solvent Extractions
Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan).
6. In
view of the above, considering the aforesaid observations of the
Honourable Apex Court and the fact that the punishment of deduction
of Rs.500/- from the monthly pension of the petitioner is inflicted
for a period of two years only, it cannot be said to be
disproportionate to the charges regarding misappropriation levelled
against the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is called for in
the present petition and the petition requires to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is dismissed in limine.
[Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.]
kamlesh*
  Â
Top