Supreme Court settles the issue of Disproportionate Punishment in Departmental Proceedings: Union of India vs. P. Balasubrahmanyam (04 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 3592-3593 of 2020
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a disciplinary authority impose a major penalty when the most serious charges against an employee are not proven? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a postal department employee who faced charges of bribery and procedural lapses. This judgment clarifies the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions and the role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The respondent, P. Balasubrahmanyam, joined the Department of Posts as a Postal Assistant in 1991 and was promoted to Assistant Superintendent of Posts in 2008. On 13.04.2010, a charge memo was issued to him, alleging both procedural lapses and bribery. The respondent argued that the charges involving bribery required prior approval from the Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) as per a circular dated 18.01.2005. The department contended that the circular was not mandatory and the charges were not entirely related to bribery.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially challenged the charge memo before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Hyderabad, which ruled against him on 19.09.2016. The Tribunal noted that the issue of prior CVO approval had been previously addressed and that the delay in proceedings was attributable to the respondent. The respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The respondent then approached the Supreme Court, which allowed him to challenge the final punishment order. Subsequently, the departmental proceedings resulted in compulsory retirement for the respondent on 24.03.2017, although the bribery charges were not proven. The Tribunal, in a later proceeding, found the punishment to be disproportionate and directed a minor penalty. The High Court then set aside the disciplinary proceedings.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 14, and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The circular dated 18.01.2005 issued by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and I.T., mandates that all cases of officers below the level of Group ‘A’ involving vigilance angle should be referred to the Directorate for consideration and advice by the CVO of the Department. The circular states:

“all cases of officers below the level of Group ‘A’ involving vigilance angle should be continued to be referred to the Directorate for consideration and advise by the CVO of the Department. The CVO, may in turn, advise for closure of the case/initiation of major/minor penalty action/any other administrative action as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as also keeping in view of the recommendation of the Head of the Circle.”

Rule 12(v) of the Postal Manual Volume III stipulates that in all vigilance cases relating to Gazetted officers, the report of the Enquiry Officer should be forwarded to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice on further action.

“The report of the Enquiry Officer conducting oral enquiry into any departmental proceedings together with the full record of the case should be forwarded to the Central Vigilance Commission who will advise the disciplinary authority concerned as to the course of further action to be taken.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that obtaining the CVO’s advice was not mandatory before initiating disciplinary proceedings, especially since the case was not purely a vigilance case.
• The appellant contended that the circular was procedural and not statutory, and therefore, non-compliance would not invalidate the proceedings.
• The appellant argued that the non-compliance with the circular did not cause any prejudice to the respondent, as the bribery charges were not proven.
• The appellant relied on the judgment of Union of India and ors. vs. Alok Kumar [(2010) 5 SCC 349], where a similar circular was held to be procedural and not mandatory.
• The appellant also cited Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ors. vs. G. Ratnam & Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 212], to argue that procedural lapses do not vitiate departmental proceedings.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the circular was statutory as it was issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), a statutory body.
• The respondent contended that the procedure prescribed by the circular and Rule 12(v) of the Postal Manual Vol. III was mandatory and not followed in his case.
• The respondent relied on judgments that emphasized the need to follow procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exercise of power.
• The respondent also argued that the disciplinary action was retributive due to his previous efforts to highlight manipulations in postal service examinations.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were invalid due to non-compliance with the circular requiring prior CVO approval in cases with a vigilance angle, and whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the charges proven against him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Union of India and ors. vs. Alok Kumar [(2010) 5 SCC 349]* to support the view that procedural requirements, such as obtaining CVC advice, are not mandatory if no prejudice is caused to the employee.
• The Court cited Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Ors. vs. G. Ratnam & Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 212]* to emphasize that procedural lapses do not invalidate departmental proceedings.
• The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the respondent, stating that those cases were generic in character on the point of non-compliance with executive instructions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The primary consideration was that the bribery charges against the respondent were not proven, which significantly reduced the gravity of the misconduct. The Court emphasized the principle of proportionality, noting that the punishment should align with the nature of the proven charges. The court also considered the fact that the respondent had prolonged the proceedings by repeatedly challenging them in judicial forums. The Court also noted that the procedural lapses were based on the admissions made by the respondent.

The Court reasoned that the circular was intended to safeguard against unwarranted disciplinary actions, but in this case, the proceedings were fair and did not prejudice the respondent. The Court also emphasized that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The Court noted that the Tribunal had correctly assessed the disproportionality of the punishment and had directed a minor penalty.

The Court stated:

“We are of the view that the course adopted by the Tribunal was the appropriate course of action, i.e., the procedural lapses having been found and the bribery allegation having been rejected the appropriate course would have been to examine only the issue of disproportionality of punishment.”

The Court also observed:

“It, thus, seems to appear that the charges originally levelled may have persuaded the concerned authority to impose punishment; losing site of the fact that the allegations qua bribery had not been found against the respondent.”

The Court further stated:

“Anyone can make mistakes. The consequences of mistakes should not be unduly harsh. We are, thus, of the view that the direction of the Tribunal is what is liable to be sustained.”

The Court did not find any dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Disciplinary authorities must ensure that punishments are proportionate to the proven charges.
• Procedural lapses alone may not warrant a major penalty, especially if serious charges like bribery are not proven.
• Circulars and guidelines issued by government departments must be followed, but non-compliance may not invalidate proceedings if no prejudice is caused.
• The principle of proportionality in service jurisprudence is important and should be considered by disciplinary authorities.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service with all consequential benefits and to impose an appropriate minor penalty instead of compulsory retirement, as per the directions of the Tribunal, within 8 weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a disciplinary authority cannot impose a major penalty when the most serious charges against an employee are not proven. The judgment reinforces the principle of proportionality in service jurisprudence and clarifies that procedural lapses alone may not warrant a major penalty. This case also clarifies that circulars and guidelines issued by government departments must be followed, but non-compliance may not invalidate proceedings if no prejudice is caused. The judgment reinforces the position of law as regards proportionality of punishment in departmental proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Tribunal’s order, emphasizing the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions. The Court held that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate, given that the bribery charges were not proven. The Court directed the authorities to impose a minor penalty instead and reinstate the respondent with consequential benefits.