State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Damodar Dutt Sharma and anr.

State of U.P. and anr. vs Damodar Dutt Sharma and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 28, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483979

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/483979
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;Kamal Kishore, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 28, 2001
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1879 S/B of 1999
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - disproportionate punishment - petitioner dismissed from service on grounds of misconduct - abusing another colleague constituting misconduct - dismissal from service not proportionate to alleged misconduct - Order of dismissal not valid - thereby petitioner to be taken back in services with all consequenti...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of U.P. and anr.

Advocate C.S.C.

Respondent

Damodar Dutt Sharma and anr.

Advocate Anil Bose, ;S.N. Bhardwaj and ;Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Advs.

Legal References

Reported In: 2002(1)AWC306

Excerpt

service - disproportionate punishment - petitioner dismissed from service on grounds of misconduct - abusing another colleague constituting misconduct - dismissal from service not proportionate to alleged misconduct - order of dismissal not valid - thereby petitioner to be taken back in services with all consequential benefits. - - hence we set-aside the impugned dismissal order as well as the order of the tribunal and direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated within a month of production of a copy of this order before the authority concerned but he will be deprived of 75% of his back salary and shall be given a severe warning.m. katju, j.1. this writ petition has been filed against the order of the u. p. public service tribunal dated 8.4.1999. the petitioner was a police constable who was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 14.7.1993. against that order, he filed a claim petition before the tribunal which has been rejected. hence this petition.2. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. the charge against the petitioner was that on 11.4.1993 while he was on duty, there was an altercation between him and another constable baburam in which the petitioner is said to have abused and threatened baburam. however, there was no charge that the petitioner actually physically assaulted baburam. in the inquiry, thepetitioner was found guilty of the charge.4. the finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere with it in writ jurisdiction. however, on the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence. after all, the petitioner did not physically assault baburam. hence we set-aside the impugned dismissal order as well as the order of the tribunal and direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated within a month of production of a copy of this order before the authority concerned but he will be deprived of 75% of his back salary and shall be given a severe warning. however, he will be given continuity of service and other consequential benefits, and 25% of his back salary from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement.5. with this observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

Full Judgment

M. Katju, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 8.4.1999. The petitioner was a police constable who was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 14.7.1993. Against that order, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which has been rejected. Hence this petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

3. The charge against the petitioner was that on 11.4.1993 while he was on duty, there was an altercation between him and another constable Baburam in which the petitioner is said to have abused and threatened Baburam. However, there was no charge that the petitioner actually physically assaulted Baburam. In the inquiry, thepetitioner was found guilty of the charge.

4. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot Interfere with it in writ Jurisdiction. However, on the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence. After all, the petitioner did not physically assault Baburam. Hence we set-aside the impugned dismissal order as well as the order of the Tribunal and direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated within a month of production of a copy of this order before the authority concerned but he will be deprived of 75% of his back salary and shall be given a severe warning. However, he will be given continuity of service and other consequential benefits, and 25% of his back salary from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement.

5. With this observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties State of U.P. and anr. vs Damodar Dutt Sharma and anr. Same Subject Service Same Judge M. Katju and ;Kamal Kishore, JJ.

Service