Delhi High Court: In a petition challenging the orders dated 16-07-2016 and 09-05-2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, whereby punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon him was upheld and the review application was dismissed, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia*, JJ., stated that no lesser punishment than dismissal from service would be commensurate to the gravity of the multiple acts of the petitioner’s misconduct. Even if there were no restraints on this court exercising judicial review of punishment order, we would not find any other punishment proportionate to the acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner. A person castigating their employer through a constant tirade of false and scandalous allegations did not deserve to continue in the employment of the said employer.
The Court stated that the present case was not a case of the State using sledgehammer to crack a nut and not the case which could be dealt with paring knife, use of battle axe was most appropriate. Thus, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Background
In 1976, the petitioner was appointed as Income Tax officer, Group A in Junior Time Scale after he qualified the All-India Civil Services Examination. Over a period, the petitioner earned promotions and became Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay. Due to the petitioner’s ill health and medical treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, he was transferred to Delhi at his request on compassionate grounds as Officer on Special Duty. Thereafter, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions) at Delhi.
On 24-02-1990, the Hindustan Times published news that one General Secretary of All India Congress Committee had alleged that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had collected Rs. 700 crores in the name of Ram Janmbhumi Temple. Taking cognizance of the said news item, the petitioner issued summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the said General Secretary and persons connected with the Ram Janmbhumi Nyas. That issue was raised in the Parliament, after which the petitioner was transferred from New Delhi to Tamil Nadu and later the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) withdrew the said issued summons. The petitioner received a letter of appreciation on 31-03-1995 from the then Commissioner of Income Tax and earned promotion as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax with retrospective effect from November 1994.
Later, being a patient of acute angina and depression, the petitioner was finding it difficult to work so he submitted leave application on 12-10-1998, which was sanctioned and was extended later. Thereafter, vide order dated 19-06-2000, the petitioner was again suspended from service in contemplation of departmental enquiry on the allegations of misconduct unbecoming of a government servant.
Subsequently, the memo of charge was served on the petitioner, alleging that while posted as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty during the period from 09-11-1998 till the date of his suspension, which was 19-06-2000. The petitioner also performed other acts of insubordination, which reflected lack of devotion to duty, and he also gave statements to the press and electronic media irresponsibly without authority and recklessly on sensitive issues even on matters of government policies, constituting acts of indiscipline unacceptable from any government servant.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had not disputed the fact that during 09-11-1998 to 19-06-2000 he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty and that he made some unauthorized statements before media against the government. The petitioner’s only submission that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionately excessive to the acts of misconduct. The Court stated that the imposition of penalty was the domain of exclusive discretion of the disciplinary authority, which discretion had to be exercised judiciously. The punishment must not strikingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, in the sense that it should not shock the judicial conscience.
In the present case, two charges of misconduct, i.e. his absence from service and unauthorised scandalous communications with media, were proved against the petitioner. The Court noted that during the period of unauthorised absence, due to the petitioner’s backache, it was not that the petitioner was bedridden and was unable to submit leave application. Even during that period of unauthorised absence, the petitioner was engaged in tirade against the government through his interactions with media and was making obnoxious and scurrilous statements against the government.
The Court noted that the petitioner had made several scandalising statements by the petitioner to the media including that he had personal knowledge about the concealed income under VDIS by several test cricketers including a disclosure of hidden income of Rs.16 crores by a test captain. Further, the petitioner made several statements nexus between the film industry and criminal mafia which led to attack on film star Rajesh Roshan, etc. The Court stated that despite being a government servant, the petitioner had engaged himself in slanderous campaign against the government and made scandalous statements to the media, which owing to the petitioner’s high position in the taxation machinery enjoyed high acceptability by media and public as credible information, thereby damaging the reputation of the government in the public eyes.
The Court stated that it was unable to find the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner as the one that could shock conscience of any court. The Court stated that no lesser punishment than dismissal from service would be commensurate to the gravity of the multiple acts of the petitioner’s misconduct. Even if there were no restraints on this court exercising judicial review of punishment order, we would not find any other punishment proportionate to the acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner. A person castigating their employer through a constant tirade of false and scandalous allegations did not deserve to continue in the employment of the said employer.
The Court stated that the present case was not a case of the State using sledgehammer to crack a nut and not the case which could be dealt with paring knife, use of battle axe was most appropriate. Thus, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
[Vishav Bandhu Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5946, decided on 27-08-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Saqib, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Srish Kumar Mishra and Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advocates.
