1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 11397 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 31218 OF 2018]

[DIARY NO. 38935 OF 2018]

PARITOSH KUMAR                                Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Disciplinary  proceedings  were  initiated  against

the appellant on 19.08.1995 leading to the following

punishment :-

“1. Penalty  of  “censure,  the  entry

whereof will be made in his ACR of the

year 1994-95.

2. Stoppage  of  3  annual  increments

with accumulative effect.

3. Recovery  of  the  balance  amount

after  deducting  the  amount  already

recovered  from  Sh.  Kumar  out  of

Rs.64,000/-, will be made at the rate of

Rs. 500/- per month.

4. Nothing will be payable to him of

the  period  of  suspension  except

maintenance allowance.”

2

4. The  penalty  proposed  in  the  order  dated

30.05.2007 has been found to be harsh by the High

Court in the order dated 15.07.2016 in Writ Petition

(S) No. 784 of 2008.  The High Court held as under :-

“………….

(iv)   Considering the charges proved,

the  punishment awarded  appears to  be

harsh  and  shockingly  disproportionate

being violative of Articles 14, 16, 19

and 21 of the Constitution of India.

X X X X X X  

7. On  cumulative  effect  of  the

facts,  reasons  and  judicial

pronouncements,  the  impugned  order

dated 30.05.2007 (Annexure-11/A to the

writ application) issued by the Deputy

Secretary, Water Resources Department,

Government  of  Jharkhand  (Respondent

No.5) being not legally sustainable, is

hereby quashed.  The Deputy Secretary,

Water Resources Department, Government

of  Jharkhand  (Respondent  No.  5)  is

directed to pass appropriate order on

the  quantum  of  punishment  within

reasonable period, preferably within a

period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt/Communication of order.”

5. Thus,  the  Deputy  Secretary,  Water  Resources

Department, was directed to pass appropriate orders

only  “......on  the  quantum  of  punishment  within

reasonable period”.

3

6. Therefore, it is clear that the High Court did

not permit reopening of the proceedings.  The limited

liberty granted to the competent authority was only

to  take  a  fresh  decision  on  the  quantum  of

punishment, since the punishment already proposed on

30.05.2007 was harsh.

7. We  direct  the  authority  concerned  to  act

accordingly,  since  there  is  no  liberty  for  fresh

disciplinary proceedings.

8. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Pending  interlocutory  application(s),  if  any,

is/are disposed of.    

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ HEMANT GUPTA ]  

New Delhi; November 19, 2018.