Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. GIRIRAJ SHARMA with present case ?

Ans: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. GIRIRAJ SHARMA 

The respondent who was deputed to undergo a course as an electrician sought leave for 10 days on 10-12-1982, which was granted. While he was on leave he sent a telegram for extension of leave by 12 days which request came to be rejected. The respondent, however, joined duty on 22-12-1982 thereby overstaying the period of leave by 12 days (sic 2 days). For this misdemeanour his services came to be terminated by an order dated 7-5-1983. His departmental appeal as well as revision were also rejected, whereupon he filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of termination which writ petition came to be allowed by the order of 3-1-1989. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all monetary and other service benefits. It is against this order that the present appeal is preferred.

The honourable Supreme Court held that we are of the opinion that so far as the present case is concerned the allegation is in regard to the incumbent having overstayed the period of leave by 12 days. The incumbent while admitting the fact that he had overstayed the period of leave had explained the circumstances in which it was inevitable for him to continue on leave as he was forced to do so on account of unexpected circumstances. We are of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal for overstaying the period of 12 days in the said circumstances which have not been controverted in the counter is harsh since the circumstances show that it was not his intention to wilfully flout the order, but the circumstances forced him to do so. In that view of the matter the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that it was open to the authorities to visit him with a minor penalty, if they so desired, but a major penalty of dismissal from service was not called for. We agree with this submission.

In the result we see no merit in this appeal but we would modify the order of the High Court by stating that while we affirm the High Court's order quashing the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement in service with monetary benefits, it will be open to the department, if it so desires, to visit the respondent-petitioner with a minor punishment. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. If the reinstatement has not taken place thus far the department should reinstate him latest within two weeks from today.

Relevancy with our case: In the above case , the respondent Girish Sharma contravened the disciplinary provision by overstaying for the period of 12 days and he was dismissed. The honourable Supreme Court held that the dismissal punishment is a harsh punishment and a minor penalty should be imposed on him. 
In our case also, the bsf personnel fired in bushes having thrilling sensation of patriotism and contravened the discipline, and thus he must be reinstated considering the principles of natural justice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ?

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4. Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. To try this offence a su...
Read more