JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the order dated 27.1.1994. Annexure 7, passed by the respondent, removing the petitioner from service, be quashed and direction be issued to the respondent to reinstate him in service along with all consequential benefits.
2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.
3. The facts of this case He in a narrow compass. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as a Driver in the Revenue Department of Kanpur Dehat in the year 1991. At the relevant point of time, he was posted on the staff car of the District Magistrate. Kanpur Dehat. On 9.12.1993, an ugly incident took place. There was a conference of the Government Officers, which was organised at Meghdoot Hotel. Kanpur on 9.12.1993. The petitioner had taken the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in the staff car to Hotel Meghdoot. It is alleged that the petitioner had taken liquor while being on duty and in a drunken state, misbehaved with the Manager and other employees of the hotel. The petitioner's behaviour was found to be unbecoming of a Government servant as he had incited the other drivers of the vehicles who had collected outside hotel Meghdoot to indulge in abusive language. A departmental enquiry was instituted against the petition at and a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply. The charges against the petitioner were proved. A show cause notice along with report of enquiry was served on the petitioner and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 27.1.1994 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), the appointing authority, i.e.. District Magistrate. Kanpur Dehat removed the petitioner from service.
4. Though in the writ petition a number of grounds have been taken to challenge the procedure adopted in the conduct of enquiry, as well as the order of punishment, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only to the question of punishment. As it is, I have perused the documents relating to enquiry and find that the enquiry was conducted perfectly in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any infirmity. The petitioner was supplied a copy of the report of enquiry along with show cause notice about the proposed punishment. At every stage, he was given an opportunity to submit his reply and to have his full say. Therefore, it was for this reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner refrained from challenging the validity of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, flow the only question involved in the present writ petition is whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the proved delinquency and misconduct on his part.
5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that given to me. the order of punishment of removal from service is not only too harsh but disquieting in nature as it would be shown presently. The background and the reasons which impelled the petitioner to commit misconduct are not too far to seek. An official conference of the officers of the district level from within and outside the district was organised at the dinner table in Hotel Meghdoot at Kanpur. The drivers, Class IVth employees and others had collected outside the Meghdoot Hotel as they had brought their respective officers in Government vehicles. It was the atmosphere to get merry and in this atmosphere, it was not unusual for the drivers and the other Class IVth employees to take liquor particularly when the officers were engaged in a dinner meeting inside the hotel. The aforesaid meeting continued for hours together. It is quite possible that the petitioner, who was attached with the District Magistrate, who was at that point of time at the helm of affairs, took strides and imbued with the feeling of superiority over the other members of the staff, approached the Manager of the hotel for serving edibles and other items to them. A raw and wrangle had taken place. The petitioner was pin-pointed and proceeded against. It is true that, other things remaining the same, that the petitioner should not have resorted to bullying the Manager and other employees of the hotel after taking liquor, boasting himself to be the driver of the District Magistrate, but the fact remains whether for such a misconduct, the petitioner, who is a petty employee and perhaps did not realise the consequence of his misdeeds, should be visited with the extreme penalty of removal from service.
6. An unsavoury feature of this case, which stares at our face is that the order of punishment of removal from service not only pricks conscience but rocks and shocks it. If the said order is allowed to stand, it is not only that the petitioner shall be punished but his family members would be worst hit. Their pain, agony and sufferings cannot, but be imagined.
7. The law is well-settled that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Myriad of orders of punishment have been subjected to judicial review to ascertain whether severe or the extreme penalty was called for in the circumstances of the case or not, in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India. AIR 1987 SC 2386, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of doctrine of proportionality in the matter of awarding punishment under the Army Act and it was observed thus:
"The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review."
Bhagat Ram u. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCO 422 and Ex Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 417. are other decisions of the Supreme Court on the point. A reference may also be made to Dr. P. N. Varman v. Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana and others, 1989(2)SLR 351 and DharamPal v. State of Haryana (P&H), 1989 (5) SLR 569 (facts of the latter case are more or less akin to the facts arid circumstances of the present case), in which it was found that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved. The extreme penalty of dismissal or removal from service was quashed and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the point of quantum of punishment. Therefore, it is well-recognised principle of Jurisprudence which permits penalty to be imposed for misconduct that the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged. This Court is empowered to interfere with the award of punishment if it is found that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the proved misconduct, the extreme penalty of removal or dismissal from service was not called for and was disproportionate to the guilt of the employee. I have no hesitation in recording the finding that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of removal of the petitioner from service is disproportionately heavy or excessive to the proved misconduct of the petitioner.
8. Now the question is whether after setting aside the order of removal of the petitioner, should this Court leave the matter of punishment to be determined by the disciplinary authority or it should itself finally pass the order of punishment. In Ramakant Misra v. State of U. P., 1983 UPLBEC 71, the Supreme Court did not feel the necessity of leaving the matter on the disciplinary authority. It set aside the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and an order was passed substituting the penalty by withholding of two increments with future effect
9. In my view, emphatic denunciation of the misconduct of the petitioner, who is a low paid employee, shall be amply reflected if instead of removing him from service, his three increments with future effect are stopped. This punishment would meet the ends of justice.
10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.1.1994, Annexure 7, passed by the respondent removing the petitioner from service is hereby quashed. By way of punishment, three annual increments of the petitioner, with future effect, shall be withheld. The petitioner is reinstated in service with all benefits, including back wages to the post of Driver in the Revenue Department but his three annual increments falling due from the date of his removal from service shall be withheld with future effect.