Tribunals ought not to interfere lightly with the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority, pursuant to domestic inquiry proceedings

The question framed before the High Court of Calcutta was whether or not, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the punishment imposed on the employee and remanding the matter back for appropriate orders being passed following the law.

The employee was employed as Constable in Indian Reserve Battalion (IRBn), A & N Islands charged for grave misconduct and gross indiscipline as he created a nuisance and trespassed into the villager's house while under influence of alcohol. Disciplinary authority after conducting inquiry imposed a penalty of withholding future increments for a period of five years with the cumulative effect. Tribunal set aside the order of Disciplinary authority which has been challenged by authority.

The law is fairly well-settled that the Courts/Tribunals ought not to lightly interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority according to domestic inquiry proceedings. The quantum or degree of punishment that is needed to be imposed on a delinquent employee the charge against whom stands established is a matter within the domain of the Disciplinary Authority and that Authority should be left free to decide the same. Of course, there should be some rational nexus or correlation between the gravity of the charge and the quantum/nature of punishment imposed. However, some degree of latitude must be allowed in this regard to the Disciplinary Authority. Just because the Court/Tribunal may be of the view that the punishment imposed on a delinquent officer should have been less in the facts and circumstances of the case that per se would not be a ground for interference. Interference may be warranted only when the punishment handed down is so grossly disproportionate with the nature and/or gravity of the charge that it shakes the conscience of the Court.

In the given case the Tribunal has not discussed why punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was too harsh. The Tribunal did not set aside the Enquiry Report although there was a prayer for the same.

Thus, Interference may be warranted only when the punishment handed down is so grossly disproportionate with the nature and/or gravity of the charge that it shakes the conscience of the Court.

Appearing Counsel/s - Mr. Krishna Rao, Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Mr. Ajith Prasad