BHOPAL/JABALPUR: Punishment should be proportionate to the charge, Madhya Pradesh high court (HC) observed while cancelling the termination of a Bhopal Development Authority (BDA) employee, noting that he was dismissed without proper enquiry while his colleagues facing similar charges were exonerated.
Referring to a 'shloka', Justice Sanjay Dwivedi said in a recent order, "Let the king inflict punishments upon the guilty (i) corresponding to the nature (gravity) of the offence (ii) according to justice and (iii) not pardon anyone who has committed the offence for the second time."
"In the first separate rock edict of Emperor Ashoka at Dhauli, he expressed his anxiety that undeserved and harsh punishment should not be imposed," the judge remarked, ordering BDA to reinstate the petitioner, Vijay Singh Yadav , with back wages and other benefits.
HC said the punishment was based on the "opinion of the enquiry officer" and not only the disciplinary authority but the appellate authority, too, stuck to it without following the law or principle of natural justice. Not a single witness was examined in the enquiry, the HC pointed out.
Yadav was a BDA revenue officer in 2015 when he was accused of making some changes to the lease deed of a piece of land at ISBT-Bhopal which caused financial loss to BDA. He was suspended and issued a notice in 2016. Yadav replied to the notice and moved HC, challenging the action against him.
HC asked Yadav to approach the BDA appellate authority, which upheld the order to sack him without giving him a hearing, his petition stated. After hearing both sides, Justice Dwivedi cited an HC order stating: "The doctrine of proportionality exists in India from time immemorial. It is applied by courts in criminal cases on a regular basis. The principle is that one cannot be visited with an extreme order/punishment which is not commensurate with the conduct/misconduct /offence."
Citing an SC order, the HC said that getting a copy of the enquiry report is the right of the delinquent when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, but in this case, the petitioner was neither given the enquiry report nor told why. Thereby, the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence.
Referring to a 'shloka', Justice Sanjay Dwivedi said in a recent order, "Let the king inflict punishments upon the guilty (i) corresponding to the nature (gravity) of the offence (ii) according to justice and (iii) not pardon anyone who has committed the offence for the second time."
"In the first separate rock edict of Emperor Ashoka at Dhauli, he expressed his anxiety that undeserved and harsh punishment should not be imposed," the judge remarked, ordering BDA to reinstate the petitioner, Vijay Singh Yadav , with back wages and other benefits.
HC said the punishment was based on the "opinion of the enquiry officer" and not only the disciplinary authority but the appellate authority, too, stuck to it without following the law or principle of natural justice. Not a single witness was examined in the enquiry, the HC pointed out.
Yadav was a BDA revenue officer in 2015 when he was accused of making some changes to the lease deed of a piece of land at ISBT-Bhopal which caused financial loss to BDA. He was suspended and issued a notice in 2016. Yadav replied to the notice and moved HC, challenging the action against him.
HC asked Yadav to approach the BDA appellate authority, which upheld the order to sack him without giving him a hearing, his petition stated. After hearing both sides, Justice Dwivedi cited an HC order stating: "The doctrine of proportionality exists in India from time immemorial. It is applied by courts in criminal cases on a regular basis. The principle is that one cannot be visited with an extreme order/punishment which is not commensurate with the conduct/misconduct /offence."
Citing an SC order, the HC said that getting a copy of the enquiry report is the right of the delinquent when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, but in this case, the petitioner was neither given the enquiry report nor told why. Thereby, the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence.
You may also like
"Reply is generic, focused on diminishing complaints and petitioners": Congress writes counter response to ECI
'Aldi's 2p drink got rid of my bloated belly - now my stomach is flattest ever'
CIPE 2024: Paving new horizons in China-UAE industrial partnerships
The Chase fans fume as player on brink of tears after record-breaking loss in final
Just stop eating these 5 white things, health problems will be reduced by half
