Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.   48-49  OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.20506-20507 of 2012]

Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal …..Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave  granted.   These  Appeals  assail  the  Judgment  dated  

11.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at  

Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38190 of 2004 as well as  

the  subsequent  Order  dated  28.3.2012  by  which  a  Review  

Application in respect of the former was dismissed.

2. The Division Bench was confronted with the dismissal from service  

of the Appellant Dr. Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal against whom three  

Articles  of  Charge  had  been  framed.   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  

1

Page 2

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 the Appellant had demanded  

and accepted Rs.18/- from Shri Balroop, Semi-skilled Revetter for  

issuing of Fit Certificate.   The Inquiry Officer, after duly perusing  

the entire evidence,  returned a  finding that  Charges 1 and 3 had  

been  proved.  The  Disciplinary  Authority,  after  considering  the  

response of the Appellant, by its Order dated 22.1.1991 imposed the  

penalty of removal of the Appellant from service.

3. A Revision came to be filed which appears to have attracted the  

gravamen of challenge before the Division Bench.  After considering  

the  manner  in  which  the  Revision  was  heard  and  decided,  the  

Division Bench in the impugned Order, has come to the conclusion  

that the President had decided the Revision in accordance with law.

4. In these proceedings, learned counsel for the Appellant has confined  

his arguments to the ground – “whether the punishment of removal  

of service of the petitioner on the alleged demand of meagre amount  

of Rs.18-45 is contrary to the doctrine of proportionality”.   

5. It  is  now  well  settled  that  it  is  open  to  the  Court,  in  all  

circumstances, to consider whether the punishment imposed on the  

delinquent workman or officer, as the case may be, is commensurate  

with the Articles of Charge levelled against him.  There is a deluge  

2

Page 3

of  decisions  on  this  question  and  we  do  not  propose  to  travel  

beyond Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 in which  

this Court had 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.  In that case, the punishment that  

had been imposed was the deduction of 10% from the pension for a  

period of one year.  The High Court had set aside that order.  In  

those premises, this Court did not think it expedient to remand the  

matter back to the Disciplinary Authority and instead approved the  

decision of the High Court.

6. The Appellant before us is presently 75 years of age.  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  

Respondent-Indian Railways.  It has been contended before us that  

the  three  charges  that  have  been sustained  against  the  Appellant  

reflected only the tip of the iceberg; however, there is no material on  

record to substantiate this argument of Respondents.  In the present  

case,  the  Appellant  has  served  the  Respondents  for  a  period  of  

twenty three years and removal from service for the two charges  

levelled against him shocks our judicial conscience.  Part III of The  

Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 contains the  

3

Page 4

penalties that can be imposed against a Railway servant, both Minor  

Penalties as well as Major Penalties.  We have already noted that it  

has not been established that the Appellant had, as a matter of habit  

or on a wide scale,  made illegal demands from Railway servants  

desirous of obtaining a Fit Certificate.  However, since two of the  

three charges have been proved, we are of the considered opinion  

that  the  imposition  of  compulsory  retirement  i.e.  Penalty  6(vii)  

would have better and more appropriately met the ends of justice.  

While this would have instilled sufficient degree of fear in the mind  

of the employees, it would also not have set at naught several years  

of service which the Appellant had already given to the Respondent-

Indian Railways.   We think that  deprivation of retiral benefits in  

addition  to  loss  of  service  is  entirely  incommensurate  with  the  

charge of the Appellant having taken very small sums of money for  

the issuance of Fit Certificate to other Railway employees.

7. It  is  in  these  premises  that  the  Appeals  are  accepted  and  the  

impugned Order dated 11.10.2010 is set aside.  The Appellant shall  

be deemed to have compulsorily retired under Part-III Penalty 6(vii)  

of the aforementioned Railway Rules with effect from 22.1.1991.  If  

he  is  entitled  to  retiral  or  other  benefits  on  the  said  date,  the  

Respondents  shall  make  necessary  payment  within  three  months  

from today.  This decision is restricted to the facts of the present  

4

Page 5

case.

............................................J. [T.S. THAKUR]

............................................J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

New Delhi January 3, 2014.

5