r^ ^^ ^ . ^~--- - - ^ •1 IN IHS H^.»r-wuu'--Uf JuDlGfflOBB A3::JABALPlia. W.P. 80. ££& OF 1999 Eia'.i.IIQN.EB (RESPOHDEM' BEFOISS' SAI) !• S.tai.e o£ MP, tbreugh Ghisf aecretary ,kcp<fal ' ~ ~' - - - - - -^ i 2.The State of Madlya Pradesb, Tla-oughs Secre-fcaiy, 3.0. & S.T./Backward Class Welfare Dspartment, Govt. of M.p., Vallabh Bbawan, BBOPAL. 3. The Govsrner ef M.P.,Bhopalo -v/s- EESPONnEMC (APPLICANT BSFOBE SSt ' BgSPO.KOBM '1. Shaakarlal Pujari aged 65 years S/o Shri Ashram Pujari, S./o Veerpara, P.0. Sarangarh, Distt. Baigarfa'(MP). 9-1. Ihe State AdministratiLT®'Iribunal, M']?' Jabalpur, through i-ts Begistrar. PsriTiOB vsisa. ARIICLB 227 OF IHE CONS'fIfCTION OF IIffllA. ^ SBI'AILS OF IHE PaTIUOH. XI-HC-22 '3^ -^ww^, afl1<4<ic, f^fR(3< /-<? w-Rfr^iflirai ^...i.^../O....^.S.fe.4. °) 311^1 ^iT K(-)i?h 3i|1^I sti^iicti ^fsd Sn^ITCHWHfel chi'Lii<n4i^ 1w"f^*'^ i^^ <f<n^i'(. ^ aipgiTsn^i Before th®&ivision Bench: Hon. Shri KHN Kuranga. CJ an^l Hon Shri L.C.Bhadoo. J 28.6.2003: Shri Sanjay Agrawal Dy. 6A Shri R.S.Patel counselfor tHe ;or petitioner/Stnte. respondent No.l. Heard both the counsel. By •this writ petition fifed of India the petitioner/State challenge Ihe order ckrted 3.12 Administrative Tribunal, Bench Shcnkarlal Pujari Vs. State of M.P has set aside the order of the punishment of compulaory herem to with4iolding of two increi unyer J|ibalpt Article 227 of Ihe Constitution •thr^u^i the Chief Secretary seeks to ^1998 passecl by the M.P. State J|ibalpur in T.A. No. 3280/1988 ( caid others) by which the Tribunal cc^mpetent authority by reducing the retirem^nt imposed on the respondent No.l increrhents wM+iout cumukitive effect. cclm 2. We have heard leamed 3. Learned counsel for •Hie the report of the Inquir)j found ccjunset for bo'Hi the pa'rties. jietitioner herein argued ihat ns per Officer all the Ihree charges were proved against -the ^-espondent ond that report of tiie r^^fw- XI-HC-22 7^ -^WW^i, 'S^tWS, fsRTTgy (.€ .- 'l. flroaTwiw ^....^.tf:'....^S1.4 "H^ -268-C? SII^T^iT h-i\* s^y ^w^ •aft^ 3fi^r TCnwgfsg •*i<<Ici41-i •WRtr 4 'fe'st Tfwsre ^; srfs^ra 311^1 acc^Dted agafnst Inquiry Officer was yide order dated 17.4.94 the State Public Serv'ii penalt/ of compulsory th^ penalty of compulsoi^y herein filed an appeai beJ of the State of Madh^ rejected by His Exceltenty 8.4.1986. Counsel for the| the charges leveled regarding the defalcation of 24,101.06 which was k^ inq)ection, found only riiort- by Rs. 24,044.06. Mr. Pujari, respondent N^ to the students towards and educational allowancel two years. The Third amount which was with •the girl sludents was no1 also not submitted by hi^. were found proved against retirement. char^e h(m hin!i by the Competent Authority that too after consultation with ^e Commission, and imposed the ^irement. Against +he imposition of retirement the respondent Mo.l Fore His Excellency, the G'ovemor \a Pradesh ond that appeal was the fiovernor vide order doted petitioner further submitted tliat Ihe respondent herein wsrs jif money, that is to say, an amount ^pt in Farsabahor cash box, was on ^. 60/- and thereby amount was (imilar'ly the money. which was with >.l herein for makin9 the payment Ipieirscholardiip, washing allowonce was also not adjusted by him for- leveled ogainst him was that 1+ie for -the scholcB-riiip meant for adjusted and tiie vouchers were ^. AH the (ibovesakl thres charges the respondent No.l herein. XI-HC-22 TE? •^ll^ld'M, »Til<^'16, facliuy -•?- 'wwrroitdth ^.^.1?..^S:£.4. "Wi, 286-'=} aiT^l^T Kw<* sf^y ^+it<=h ^^ an^i^gwB<?ti +i^td'ii1-f tniRfi ^ fe^ <r»i<^it ^T ari'g'T sn^i 4. According to the leame<| chnrges leveled agoinst hi^ they are coricemed witt^ circumstance the Tribunal also not justified in. its dc(i of punishment from comp4 holding of two Accordmgto the counsel not right in sitting as an| the decision of +he petitioner hos ploced Court reported in (2002)] othars Vs. Narain Singhl, decision of the Apex Tri|xra Snunln Bank and ano't+ier ond argued that right to reduce the •that of stoppcge of two feamed counsel appearing •the decision of -Hie Tribunnl incremehts flor comptitait relituhce Cou^ counsel for the petittoner the i^n are of very serious nature ond the public money and in -riiat was not within its right and was ^cision while reduc'ing the qucntum (Isory retiresment to that of with- without cumuhtive effect. tiiepetitioner -the Tribunal was appellate euthority and chonging authority. Counsel for •rtie on the judgment of the Apex 5 SCC 11, Union of India and l-1e also placed relkm—e°n the reported in (2001) 10 5CC 70 \ortwrs Vs. Tnrit Barun ft°y and Ithe Tribunal wos not within it"s of compulsory retirement to increments. On -the other h'and fpr respondent No.l has support-'sd penafty M- [^^rt X3-EC-22 ^c? •^ll''<icl'l<, a'lii'u'is, ('iwi'yy •c%^ s WIR'IT ai*<i<h .^.^fc.'A...... aio' c?<^ 3:iI^I^I 'RFIWSiI^T 1a;i[W^f^i sn^¥[^giw ^)f?g °bl*ll<'l41-l 4|t<<-fl '? 'fST3t ifaltiK ^i STfSaq-BI^I 5. From the perusal the findings recorded chdrges leveled cgain of the judgment of -riie Tribunal ond by •the disciplinary authority on The st re^aondent No.l ns well as tiie decision of •t+ie comp4'tent outhority acceptmg the inquiry reporr, it is apparen1|ly ctear that all the Three charges whkh were regarding short'age of money in the cash bex, was found proved aga^nst the respondent No.l herein. The other chnrge relating |to The money which the responden't No.l took but did r|ot either submit the vouchers or adjusted the amounlj, which he withdrew ogainst the schohrship, washin9 al owonce ond educatioml alfowance for the students, was alsjs found proved against him. These char-ges, according to f+ie counsel for the petitioner, rekrte to "riie financial irregu^irities committed by the respondent No.l for his (»rsonal gain. Therefore, by any stretch of innagination it carr not ^e said thut -the charges agamst -riie respon^nt No.l here^n were of trifling nature and the finding of the compe't^nt authorHy imposing the punishment of compulsory retirer^ent was severe in any\ manner or diqiroportionate to -tl^e misconduct of the respondent. In the above judgment ^eljed upon by the counsel for the petitioner the Suprem^ Court- has clecxrly lakl doum the kw [Tft^ ^Pa^ XI-HC-22 'S^ •^WM'i, W-^WW, f^v\W<^ 7, ..M.£. W(THTS)t|l<!h - .....T......^ 28fr-^<^ 3II^?[^i[ h-V^ sr^t 5tt^E^ ^if^T ad^iTOnwgfei 'wiferah.-ciitRff^ fsW f^wi ^aTpgq sn^l 6. that it was not for -th^ Court to reduce on the mispkiced grounds of sympathy an|d mercy. •Kie punishment of dismissal to reinstatement with ^ertain punishment like shortage of three increments. It (las also been held by the Supreme Court in onolher case ^f Tripura ©raminBank (ajpra) that the "High Court gro^sly erred in re-oppreciating the materkitsand interferir(g in second appeal with the quantum of punishment. Moreo^er, yet in another Judgment in -the case of Oistrict Foresf Officer Vs. R. Rajtunanickom and onother reported in ^003 AIR SCW 2919, the Supreme Court' has hetd that th4 Tribunal can not take over fimctions of Disciplinary Autho^ity and it can not go in-t'o the correctness or truth fur'ttier observed thali af the charges. The Supreme CourT indeed even af'ter the conchision of +he clisciplinary proceeijlings, if the matter comes to Court or Tribunat, -tfiey have no juriscfiction to look into the truth of charges or into +he cof-rec-tness of -the findings recorded by the disclplinary nuthor|ity or the appeltate diuthiority as the case moy be. -' Thus, after hearin^ the counsel for the parties and going •throu9h -the law laid down by the Supreme Court- in -t+ie .-HC-22 T51 -111CIICI<<, 9Tll'M'16, (°lc)iyy.< •^ *ii*iwi tbiirai.^.f3...^:£I.L(........'V^ W9-'S{^ ^^ST' SD^T^T h-\M svjsi shli'b'gf^I sii^iWnwdto CM<fhn^TT 'tTR^ff ^ "fe^ ^f^R ^iaipgii 311^1 aforesaid coses retied and taknig note of leveled against respoi of the considered opir retirement of the competent outhority to the misconduct of the view -that the on not- .le9a' ancl Jus circumstances of thei to be set-aside. Accol is allowed ond the imt set aside. Sd/- Ouef Justice ^ipon by •thecounsel for the petitioner 1|he fact that all the •thr8e charges i^tent No.l ftere found proved, we are ^on that •the punishment of compulsory respondent No.l imposed by the 4os not in any monner disproportionate ^the respondent. Therefore, we m^ of ^ler passed by the kamed Tribunal is 1-ifjed lookin9 to the facts and Jcase and therefore, Ihe same is liable •din9ly the petition filed by the State ^ugned orcter passed by the Tribunal is \ Sdl. l--C. Bhadoo w? ,. -y [T>^ W1