AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2952 ::2007 AIR SCW 5387 ::2008 (1) AIR Jhar R 583 ::(2007) 6 Supreme 521 ::2007 (7) SCC 257 ::(2007) 10 Scale 344 ::(2007) 4 ESC 580 ::(2008) 2 Lab LN 137 ::(2007) 4 JLJR 222 ::(2007) 4 Pat LJR 230 ::(2007) 4 SCT 83 ::(2008) 1 Raj LW 450 ::2007 (5) ServLR 609 ::(2008) 2 ServLJ 174 ::2007 (6) Supreme 521 ::(2007) 58 AllIndCas 215 (SC) ::2007 (58) AllIndCas 215

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 2006 (129) Delhi LT 73)

Hon'ble Judge(s): G. P. Mathur, P. K. Balasubramanyan , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.311— Re-instatement - Permissible in cases where employee is illegally dismissed or removed from service - Not in case where employee has sought for voluntary retirement and has been actually relieved - No much delay in accepting prayer for voluntary retirement - Disciplinary proceedings also culiminating in imposition of minor punishment - There was absolutely no ground for directing reinstatement with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. (Para 6) (B) Constitution of India , Art.311, Art.226— Disciplinary proceedings - Penalty imposed on delinquent employee - Scope of judicial review is limited - Interference with minor punishment imposed - Improper - However, order of High Court not set aside. The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the Court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the Court can itself impose lesser penalty. In the present case the penalty imposed upo....