Administrative Tribunal Cannot Alter Punishment Unless It Records That Dismissal Was Disproportionate To Charges Levelled: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has held that unless a finding is recorded that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on a government employee is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal will not get jurisdiction to substitute the punishment.
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice C M Poonacha allowed the petition filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, modifying the punishment of dismissal imposed on one H S Kanti, a former Typist to compulsory retirement.
The court said, “The Tribunal without recording as to whether the punishment of dismissal for the proved charge of accepting bribe is disproportionate or whether it shocks the conscience of the Court, could not have substituted the punishment.”
The Government had by its order dated 24.07.2014, imposed punishment of dismissal in the exercise of its power under Rule 8(viii) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, as in disciplinary proceedings it was proved that she had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs 300 and it amounted to misconduct.
On the application made by Kanti, the tribunal took a lenient view stating since the petitioner was a lady and had put in only 11 years and 8 months of service, if the dismissal order were to be upheld, she would be put to great hardship and inconvenience.
The Government contended that the Tribunal without recording a finding that the punishment imposed is excessive when compared to the nature and gravity of charge, could not have substituted the punishment of dismissal by compulsory retirement. The Tribunal could not act as Appellate Authority. Moreover, only on the ground of sympathy, the tribunal could not exercise its power to substitute punishment.
The bench on going through the records noted that the power to impose punishment vests with the Disciplinary Authority depending on the gravity and seriousness of proved charge/misconduct.
Further, she had accepted money tendered by the complainant with the knowledge that the complainant's work was due with her and with DGO No.1. Thus in terms of Rule 16(4) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966, receiving money without authority or without there being any order would be misconduct.
Noting that in the criminal case though the respondent was acquitted but it was not honourable acquittal. The court said “In the instant case, since the charge of receiving illegal gratification/bribe is proved, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing punishment of dismissal. The Tribunal is not justified in substituting punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement.”
The court concluded “In the instant case, the Tribunal has not found and come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved against the respondent in the departmental enquiry. The Tribunal, having observed that demanding and receiving bribes is a serious social morality and it needs to be dealt with firmly, could not have substituted the punishment of dismissal with that of compulsory retirement.”
Accordingly, it allowed the petition and set aside the Tribunal order.
Appearance AGA M Rajakumar for Petitioner.
Advocate N.S Siraj Gowda FOR Advocate Vandana V for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND H S Kanthi
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1647/2020