C.W.P. No. 14991-CAT of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14991-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision 23.08.2010 Jasvir Kaur -----Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The only issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner Jasvir Kaur is whether the quantum of punishment could be interfered with by the courts or the Tribunal, once an enquiry has been held in accordance with the Rules and after complying with the principles of natural justice. The order of the Tribunal dated 06.10.2009 citing the judgment of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1996 SC 484, has taken the view that no interference would be warranted. The Petitioner was working on the post of TGT (Hindi) at Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. The petitioner is alleged to have given corporal punishment to a Class VII student, namely, Km. Sarita on the allegations made by Ms. Balwinder Kaur, Staff Nurse that Km. Sarita had stolen the Golden Jewellery from her residence. An C.W.P. No. 14991-CAT of 2010 -2- enquiry committee was constituted and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.07.2001. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked. Some enquiry held for inflicting minor penalty under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Service (CCA), Rules, 1965 (for short 'the 1965 Rules'). After enquiry report, the penalty of removal was proposed and no enquiry report could be supplied on 13.06.2003. The proposal was not approved as the minor penalty alone could be inflicted in accordance with Clause v under Rule 11 as is provided by Rule 16 of the 1965 Rules. However, respondents directed that regular departmental enquiry for inflicting major penalty be conducted. That order has not been challenged ever and we take it to have attained finality. On a fresh enquiry, petitioner was found guilty, she served with show cause notice dated 16.12.2004, eventually penalty of removal from service was imposed on 23.02.2005. The appeal filed by the petitioner met the same fate and was dismissed on 29.08.2005. The order of the appellate authority and other adverse orders passed against the petitioner were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 831-PB-2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the application and another application to seek review of the aforesaid order has also been dismissed on 16.04.2010. In paras 9 and 10 of its order, the Tribunal has recorded categorical findings, which reads thus: “9. There is strength in the argument of the C.W.P. No. 14991-CAT of 2010 -3- respondents that the OA is hopelessly barred by limitation since the impugned order was passed on 29.08.2005 and the OA has been filed on 24.12.2007. Therefore, this OA can be rejected outright on this ground alone. However, even on merits, the contention of the applicant has no force as well be seen from the following paragraphs. 10. After careful consideration of the matter, we observe that the applicant has failed to point out any illegality in the orders passed by the Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority, which are found to be duly supported with reasons. The applicant was given a chance to be heard at every stage of the proceedings. Her replies were considered at every stage and speaking orders were passed with regard to the charges against her.” The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi's (supra) holding that no interference by the Courts in the quantum of punishment would be warranted because such a power lies with the discretion of the fact-finding authority as it is required to maintain discipline. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and are of the view that no interference of this Court would be warranted because the corporal punishment administered by the petitioner to her student of Class VII, namely, Km. Sarita shows lack of insensitivity or proportionality on the part of the petitioner. It has come on record that blood stained shirt was C.W.P. No. 14991-CAT of 2010 -4- shown to the Enquiry Officer which indicates ruthlessness on the part of the petitioner. This conduct has also been found against the instructions issued by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, which prohibits corporal punishment (See P-20). The parental attitude, which is expected from the teacher had taken inhumane shape in an educational residential school, where innocent girl who was aged about 12 years was subjected to such an atrocious behaviour. Accordingly, we find that the law is well settled with regard to interference in the quantum of punishment. The earliest judgment was delivered in the case of Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177. In para 27 of the judgment, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under: “27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed C.W.P. No. 14991-CAT of 2010 -5- on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.” The aforesaid view has been repeatedly followed and applied in numerous cases including B.C. Chaturvedi's case (supra) and State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212. The cardinal principle is that it is within the jurisdiction of respondent to proportionally weigh the misconduct. Ordinarily awarding punishment to a student may not sound in extreme penalty of removal from service but in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the perception of the respondent it may not be such a punishment so as to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. For the reasons aforementioned, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE August 23, 2010 Atul