Summary
The apex court bench said that Rule-52 empowers the Appellate Authority to examine whether the penalty imposed is excessive, substantial or insufficient and to increase, reduce or abolish the penalty accordingly. The bench partly allowed the appeal of the Central Government against the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the sentence of dismissal given by the Appellate Authority but also made a very important point.
hear the news
Expansion
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said the quantum of punishment after the charge of misconduct is proved is within the discretionary domain of the authority and it is the sole power to decide.
As per the case, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was dismissed from service. It was found that he had abused and assaulted an officer.
Though the Disciplinary Authority awarded the penalty for deduction of pay in only two phases, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the CISF and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.
Thereafter, allowing the writ petition filed by the constable, the Orissa High Court, setting aside the sentence of dismissal awarded by the appellate authority, restored the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority.
The bench said that the High Court has compared the appellate power under Rule-52 of the CISF Rules, 2001 with the power of judicial review, vested with the Constitutional Courts.
The bench said that Rule-52 empowers the Appellate Authority to examine whether the penalty imposed is excessive, substantial or insufficient and to increase, reduce or abolish the penalty accordingly.
The bench partly allowed the appeal of the Central Government against the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court has upheld the sentence of dismissal awarded by the appellate authority but held that the constable is entitled to allowance for the period of suspension.