Supreme Court of India
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. versus M. MANGAYARKARASI AND ETC. on 26 November 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 427
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
v.
M. MANGAYARKARASI AND ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11345-11346 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 26, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law: Removal from service – Misappropriation offunds by the staff in the District Treasury Office – Charge sheetagainst 11 staff members – State Government issued order of removalin case of two employees (respondents)– Single judge of High Courtinterfered with the punishment on the ground that other employeesagainst whom disciplinary proceeding was initiated on similarcharges were subjected to comparatively a lenient punishment ofstoppage of increments and rejected the stand of the StateGovernment that the quantum of loss caused due to production ofbogus bills in the case of two employees was substantially high –On appeal, Division Bench of High Court observed that in mattersinvolving disciplinary proceedings, cases of two employees cannotas such be compared – However, it was of view that since the chargesagainst all the employees were identical and the employees were inthe same cadre of ministerial service, the view of single judge inapplying parity of treatment cannot be faulted – On appeal, held:In seeking to apply the principle of parity of treatment, the HighCourt manifestly failed to notice that the gravity of misconduct whichwas established against the appellants was distinct from and of amore serious nature than what was found against the otheremployees – While the language of the charge may be similar inother cases that would not detract from the fact that the amountinvolved and the extent of the lack of verification in the case of therespondents was of a much higher order – The Division Bench havingnoticed that in a matter of this nature, the principle of parity cannotbe attracted, nonetheless affirmed the view of the Single Judge –This was evidently erroneous – Moreover, the approach of both theSingle Judge and the Division Bench cannot be accepted havingdue regard to the parameters of judicial review in disciplinary matters– Single Judge substituted the penalty which was imposed by the
A
B
CDE
FG
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Adisciplinary authority – The imposition of a penalty in disciplinaryproceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer – Unless thepenalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the chargeswhich are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed tothe employer cannot be interfered with – In this view of the matter,there was merit in these appeals – Administrative law – JudicialBreview.Disposing of the appeals and remanding the matter to HighCourt, the Court.
HELD : The nature and extent of a dereliction of duty andCthe consequences of the dereliction are significant matters whichcan legitimately be borne in mind by the disciplinary authority.While noticing that such a submission was in fact made beforethe Single Judge, the Division Bench proceeded to apply theyardstick of parity. Parity could not be applied for the simplereason that there was a material distinction in the case of theDmisconduct alleged against the appellants as compared to theother employees. The approach of both the Single Judge andthe Division Bench cannot be accepted having due regard to theparameters of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The SingleJudge substituted the penalty which was imposed by theEdisciplinary authority, for a penalty which appeared to the Courtto be just and proper. The imposition of a penalty in disciplinaryproceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer. Unless thepenalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the chargeswhich are proved, the element of discretion which is attributedto the employer cannot be interfered with. The impugnedFjudgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ appeals arerestored to the file of the High Court for disposal afresh uponhearing the parties. [Paras 13-19][431-B-H; 432-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11345-11346 of 2018.G
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1275 and 1276 of 2012.
Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, K. V. Ramkumar, R. Naveenraj,K. V. Vijayakumar Advs. for the Appellants.
H
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. v. M. MANGAYARKARASI[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Rutwik Panda, Ms. Anshu Malik, Ms. Nikhar Berry, P. R. Kovilan,Nanda Kishore, Ms. Lakshmi, Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, V. Vasu DevanAdvs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from a judgment of the Division Bench ofthe High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6.2.2015 by which writappeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment of a learnedSingle Judge were dismissed.
3. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petitionsfiled by two employees of the State, interfered with the punishment ofremoval from service on the ground that it was shockinglydisproportionate. The Single Judge substituted it by directing the stoppageof increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
4. The two employees, M. Mangayarkarasi and M. Jayalakshmi,were working as Superintendent and Accountant respectively in theDistrict Treasury at Salem. The charges against them were of havingadmitted and sanctioned bills of the office of the Assistant Commissionerof Commercial Taxes without proper verification, in accordance withthe departmental procedures.
5. The case of the State is that during the period 1997-2000, afraud involving misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1.22 crores by the staffin the District Treasury Office, Salem came to light involving thepresentation of 257 bogus bills in the Treasury. Following the submissionof a Special Audit Report, a charge memo was issued against elevenmembers of the Treasury staff. Charges were framed in the course ofthe disciplinary proceedings. On the charges having been found to beestablished, the State Government issued an order of removal fromservice.
6. The orders of removal were challenged before the learnedSingle Judge.
7. The learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment on theground that other employees against whom disciplinary proceedings hadbeen initiated on similar charges had been subjected to a comparativelya lenient punishment of stoppage of increments.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A
A8. The State Government, however, sought to justify the punishmenton the ground that the quantum of loss caused due to the production ofbogus bills in the case of the two employees was substantially higher.The learned Single Judge rejected this submission on the ground that thecourt would have to consider only the nature of the charge and not thequantum involved.B
9. The Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned SingleJudge, while dismissing the writ appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu.The Division Bench observed that it was conscious of the fact that incases involving disciplinary proceedings, cases of two employees cannotas such be compared. However, it was of the view that since the chargesCagainst all the employees were identical and the employees were in thesame cadre of ministerial service, the view of the learned Single Judgein applying parity of treatment could not be faulted. Moreover it washeld that the violations were of a procedural nature.
10. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that there isDa clear distinction between the case of the two employees in questionand others who were awarded minor punishments involving the stoppageof increments. This distinction is sought to be brought out from thefollowing chart which is annexed to the present proceedings;
Sl. No. Name of the DelinquentNo. of BillsAmountmisappropriated1.J. Nirmaladevi6Rs. 2,56,918/-2.P. Vardharajan12Rs. 4,59,527/-3.R. Anandan8Rs. 2,59,576/-4.R. Raghavan19Rs. 6,01,418/-5.M. Mangayarkarasi90Rs. 45,28,003/-6.M. Jayalakshmi105Rs. 51,98,403/- E
F
11. It was urged that the two employees in the present case wereinvolved in the verification of 90 and 105 bills respectively involvingGmisappropriation of an amount of Rs. 45.28 lakhs and 51.98 lakhsrespectively. Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct and theamount involved, it was urged on behalf of the appellants that thedistinction which was made by the disciplinary authority could not befaulted.
H
12. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of therespondents that the High Court has taken a compassionate view of thematter having regard to the fact that the employees have, in the meantime,retired from service. Moreover, it was sought to be urged that thelapses were procedural and no financial benefit had accrued to theemployees. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted thatthere is no case of misappropriation against the two employees involvedin the present appeals.
13. There are several reasons, in our view, why the approach ofthe High Court in the present case cannot be accepted.
14. First, in seeking to apply the principle of parity of treatment,the High Court has manifestly failed to notice that the gravity of misconductwhich was established against the appellants was distinct from and of amore serious nature than what was found against the other employees.This ex-facie emerges from a perusal of the chart which has beenextracted above. The nature and extent of a dereliction of duty and theconsequences of the dereliction are significant matters which canlegitimately be borne in mind by the disciplinary authority.
15. Second, while noticing that such a submission was in factmade before the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench proceeded toapply the yardstick of parity. Parity could not be applied for the simplereason that there is a material distinction in the case of the misconductalleged against the appellants as compared to the other employees. Whilethe language of the charge may be similar in other cases that does notdetract from the fact that the amount involved and the extent of the lackof verification in the case of the respondents is of a much higher order.The Division Bench having noticed that in a matter of this nature, theprinciple of parity cannot be attracted, nonetheless affirmed the view ofthe learned Single Judge. This is evidently erroneous.
16. Third, the approach of both the learned Single Judge and theDivision Bench cannot be accepted having due regard to the parametersof judicial review in disciplinary matters. The learned Single Judgesubstituted the penalty which was imposed by the disciplinary authority,for a penalty which appeared to the Court to be just and proper. Theimposition of a penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domainof the employer. Unless the penalty is found to be shockinglydisproportionate to the charges which are proved, the element of discretionwhich is attributed to the employer cannot be interfered with.
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
17. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that there ismerit in the present appeals. However, since the High Court had interferedonly on the ground of parity of treatment, it would be appropriate toremand the proceedings back for fresh consideration on the other groundsof challenge to the findings in and outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
B18. To enable this process to be undertaken, we set aside theimpugned judgment of the High Court dated 6.2.2015. The writ appealsshall stand restored to the file of the High Court for disposal afresh uponhearing the parties.
19. Since the employees have retired from service in the meantime,Cwe request the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ appealsand endeavor an expeditious disposal within six months from the date onwhich a certified copy of this order is placed on the record of the HighCourt.
20. We clarify that while we have disapproved of the view of the DHigh Court on the question of parity, all other contentions of the partiesare kept open to be adjudicated upon by the High Court.
21. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
E
Devika Gujral
Matters remanded to High Court.
F
G
H