This article, in the form of an FAQ, is an attempt at explaining the legal principle upheld by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ishwar Chandra Jayswal V the Union of India in [2014] INSC 3 simplest possible terms.
- .What is the fact of this case?
Mr. Ishwar Chandra was an officer with the Indian Railways. He was dismissed from the service as he was found taking bribes. Three articles of charges were framed against him. Article-I was that he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.26/- from Shri Pyare Ram, Khalasi for issuing in his favour a Fit Certificate.
Article-II, in similar vein was that the Appellant demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.34/- from Shri Nandlal, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing him a Fit Certificate. Article-III was that he had demanded and accepted Rs.18/- from Shri Balroop, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing of Fit Certificate. All the charges against Mr. Ishwar were proved after the completion of the enquiry. The disciplinary committee, after considering the response of Mr. Ishwar, levied penalty on him and removed him from the services.
- How did the case proceed?
Mr. Ishwar filed a revision application with the division bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court came to the same conclusion as the disciplinary committee and did not reverse the decision of the disciplinary committee. Mr. Ishwar therefore approached the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court.
- On what grounds did Mr. Ishwar approached the Supreme Court?
Mr. Ishwar’s case was based on the premises whether the punishment of removal of service of Mr. Ishwar on the alleged demand of meagre amount of Rs.18-45 is contrary to the doctrine of proportionality.
- What is the doctrine of proportionality?
The doctrine of proportionality deals with the balancing test. In simple terms, it is against excessive punishment in comparison of the degree of crime committed. To clarify, the degree of punishment should be proportional to the nature of crime.
- What verdict did the Supreme Court give?
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mr. Ishwar. The Supreme Court held that it is a settled principle that in all circumstances, the punishment imposed on the delinquent workman or officer, must be commensurate with the Articles of Charge levelled against him.
The Supreme Court considered the fact that Mr. Ishwar was 75 years of age at the stage of the hearing of the appeal.. At the time when the Articles of Charge had been served upon him, he had already given the best part of his life to the service of the -Indian Railways. Furhter, Part III of The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 contains the penalties that can be imposed against a Railway servant, both Minor Penalties as well as Major Penalties. The Supreme Court further observed that it was not established that Mr.Ishwar had, as a matter of habit or on a wide scale, made illegal demands from Railway servants desirous of obtaining a Fit Certificate. Nevertheless, since two of the three charges were proved, the Supreme Court opined that it was it was fit to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement i.e. in order to meet the end of justice.
The Supreme Court further opined that imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement would have instilled sufficient degree of fear in the mind of the employees. It would also not set at naught several years of service which Mr. Ishwar gave to the Indian Railways. Finally, the Supreme Court held that deprivation of retiral benefits in addition to loss of service is entirely incommensurate with the charge of Mr. Ishwar having taken very small sums of money for the issuance of Fit Certificate to other Railway employees.
There are several decisions in which the Supreme Court has held that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as to the severity or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed; it can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the Disciplinary Authority concerned.
- What is the relevance of this case for us?
If at any point of time during the course of your professional life you breach your company policies/rules and a disciplinary action is initiated against you consequentially leading to a punishment which can be considered as unduly severe, please be minded that you have the right to challenge the punishment on the grounds of doctrine of proportionality.
Recent Comments