ORDER
Shethna, J.
(1). It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Parma Nanda (1), held that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the penalty imposed on the delinquent employees by the competent authority on the ground that it was not commensurate with the delinquency of the employee but in that very judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved out an exception to the Rule.
(2). It is also true that in case of Union of India and another vs. G. Ganayutham
(Dead) by LRs. (2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily, the Court should
not substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment
awarded by the competent authority and the matter should be remanded to the
authority itself on the point of punishment.
(3). A short but interesting question involved in this writ petition is “whether this Court is bound to interfere with each and every order passed by the subordinate court or Tribunal in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution”?
(4). In the inslant case, the respondent/original applicant was working as Postman in the Post Office, Devgarh. The charge, which was found to be proved against
him was that on 17.8.94 at 17 : 50 hours, he entered the office of the Inspector of the Post Office, Devgarh and gave abuses to the Inspector and misbehaved with him and threw chairs which fell near the gate. Therefore, he was made to compulsory retire from service. The said order dated 20.4.88 of compulsory retirement from service was challenged by the respondent before the appellate authority in appeal but the same was also dismissed on 15.12.95, therefore, he filed the O.A. No. 212/96 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
(5). The learned Tribunal modified the order of punishment of compulsory retirement by passing the penalty of reduction to the next lower stage in time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect on the ground that while passing the order of compulsory retirement from service, the authority considered the past conduct of the applicant without giving him an opportunity to explain the same and that the order of retirement was shockingly disproportionate to the mis-conduct which is found to be proved. This order passed by the Tribunal is challenged by the Union of India and others in this writ petition.
(6). It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Lodha that the mis-conduct committed by the respondent/original applicant was such which calls for the maximum penalty of dismissal from service but the authority was linient, therefore, instead of passing an order of dismissal from service, it has passed an order of compulsory retirement which ought not to have been interfered by the Tribunal. He submitted that the mis- conduct which is found to be proved itself was sufficient to pass the order of compulsory retirement. However, while passing the order of compulsory retirement, the disciplinary authority also took into consideration the past reco’rd of the applicant and decided not to retain him in service. He, therefore, submitted that such an order ought not to have been interfered by the Tribunal.
(7). Learned counsel Mr. Lodha also submitted that the punishment awarded to the original applicant in past for the mis-conduct found to be proved were not denied by the applicant either in departmental appeal or the original application before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment.
(8). From the impugned order passed by the Tribunal; it is clear that the Tribunal interfered with the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that without giving any opportunity to the applicant, his past record of punishment was used by the authority which was not permissible under the law. For arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Ram Naresh Sharma vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (3).
(9). Ordinarily, the Courier the Tribunal should not interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman in the domestic enquiry provided it is grossly disproportionate to the mis-conduct which is found to be proved in the domestic enquiry. It may be that a mis-conduct of insubordination may be considered to be of a very serious nature if it is committed in a police department or military etc. for which the maximum punishment of dismissal from service or compulsory retirement may be passed but in a department like Postal Department, the same may not be considered that serious for which a man can be seeked from the service by passing an order of compulsory retirement or dismissal from service.
(10). While passing an order of maximum penalty like dismissal from service or compulsory retirement, the authority must take into consideration other relevant factors like long standing service of the workman, the nature of mis-conduct, the family background of the workman etc.
(11). In the instant case, the original applicant was working as Postman. He had put on almost 21 years of service. He was coming from an other backward community i.e. Nai (Barber). He was not a lunatic. Something must have happened at the relevant point of time where because of some incident, he must have lost his temper and gave abuses to his Inspector and threw chairs near the gate.
(12). We don’t approve such type of mis-behaviour but at the same time, when the question of imposing punishment arises then the authority must bear in mind that it should commensurate to the mis-conduct. It appears to us that the applicant who was subordinale has misbehaved with his superior authority, therefore, such an order of punishment of compulsory retirement was passed against him. The higher authority should be more magnanimous while passing the order of punishment. Presently, the trend of the Courts is to reform the persons and everywhere reformative measures are adopted.
(13). Under the circumstances, when the Tribunal was convinced that the penalty of compulsory retirement was shockingly disproportionate to the mis-conduct found to be proved against the applicant and it thought it fit to modify it by passing the penalty of reduction to the next lower stage in time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect, then certainly this court would not interfere in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(14). It is true that ordinarily the Court or Tribunal should remand the matter to the concerned authority on the point of sentence. But this is a case in which the order of penalty was passed by the disciplinary authority way back on 27.’1.9-1 which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority on 15.12.95. Now after a period of 5 years, it would not be proper for the Tribunal to remand the matter on the point of punishment.
(15). In case of Suresh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) allowed the writ petition No. 1058/90 filed by the petitioner on 10.8.99 and straightaway interfered with the order of punishment and modified the penalty of punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to the order of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, instead of remanding the matter to the authority. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by the State of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1519/99 which was dismissed on 7.12.2000 holding that when the learned Single Judge thought it fit to exercise its discretion and modify the penalty, then this Court will not interfere with such order. The reasoning given by the Division Bench would also apply in this case.
(16). Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we do not want to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(17). However, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Lodha that the petitioners would be required to pay the back wages also to the original applicant if he is reinstated in service with the modified order of punishment, then it will be no punishment at all because he will be even paid back wages of last 5 years. He pointed to us the operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal wherein it has been stated that the applicant would be entitled to all consequental benefits.
(18). It seems that there is some wrong apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the back wages. It is true that while modifying the order of punishment, the Tribunal has ordered that the applicant would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. However, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded back wages in view of the fact that it had modified the punishment of compulsory retirement by passing the penalty of reduction to the next lower stage in lime scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the original applicant would be entitled to all the consequental benefits of service except the back wages.
(19). With these observations and directions, this petition is dismissed.
(20). Stay petition is also dismissed.