High Court cannot interfere unless punishment by disciplinary authority shockingly disproportionate: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that unless and until punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority was shockingly disproportionate or there was procedural irregularity in the inquiry, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with such punishment [M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v Shri Rajendra D Harmalkar]..A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna found that the Bombay High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with an order of dismissal passed by a disciplinary authority."When a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service, the same could not have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” said the Bench..The top court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the High Court directing the respondent to be reinstated without back wages and other benefits, while substituting the punishment of dismissal imposed by the authority.The punishment of dismissal was imposed when the respondent was found to have secured his job as a Refueling Helper by submitting a false and forged Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC)..A departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent, charges against him were proved and a punishment of dismissal was proposed. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal.Pertinently, he was tried separately by criminal court which acquitted him by giving benefit of the doubt since the original SSLC certificate was not brought on record..The High Court, on hearing the petitioner’s appeal against the order of the authority, found that the punishment imposed on him was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and ordered his reinstatement. .The appellant moved the Supreme Court stating that the High Court materially erred in observing that the punishment was disproportionate, and submitted that the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal.It was their stand that it was a case of trust and once an employer lost trust in an employee, the High Court ought not to have interfered..The Supreme Court first considered several precedents on the point of judicial review and interference of the courts in matters of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality.Based on the same, the Court opined that producing a fake certificate amounted to grave misconduct.“The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer," the Bench mused. .It was further observed that whether such certificate was material or not, or had any bearing on the employment was immaterial since the question was not of mens rea.“Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service,” the Court concluded..It was further clarified that once there was an admission by the respondent, an acquittal by the criminal court was immaterial.With these observations, the judgment of the High Court was quashed and set aside and the order of the disciplinary authority was restored.The same bench had in another case on April 19 held that a High Court cannot set aside a well-reasoned order of a disciplinary authority only on grounds of sympathy and sentiments, especially in cases involving misconduct by public servants..[Read Judgment]