The Jharkhand High Court clarified that courts cannot substitute or change disciplinary punishments. Instead, matters must be remitted to the disciplinary authority, ensuring fairness and proportionality while protecting long-serving employees’ rights and benefits.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has recently clarified an important principle in service law: while courts can review the proportionality of a punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority, they cannot substitute the punishment themselves. Instead, the proper course is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, ensuring a fair balance between the gravity of the charges and the punishment imposed.
ALSO READ: PNB Fraud Case: Belgian Court Approves Mehul Choksi’s Extradition to India
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute involving a senior education officer in Jharkhand. The petitioner, a long-serving employee appointed through the 33rd Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC), had joined the Bihar Education Service Class II cadre in December 1988. After the reorganization of Bihar and the formation of Jharkhand, she was allotted to the Jharkhand cadre and posted as a Principal before being promoted to District Education Officer (DEO), Palamau.
Within less than eight months, she was transferred back to the headquarters. The petitioner alleged that the transfer was unfair and intended to allow another official to assume her responsibilities. Subsequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against her, citing financial irregularities, negligence of duties, and harassment of subordinates.
The disciplinary authority ultimately found the charges proven and ordered her removal from service. This order was challenged through a writ petition. The Single Judge, considering the proportionality of the punishment, quashed the removal and remitted the matter for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment.
High Court’s Reasoning
In the appeal against the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai emphasized the well-established principle that while courts have the power to review the severity of disciplinary punishments, they cannot punish their own.
The Court observed:
- Judicial interference in disciplinary matters is permissible if the punishment “shocks the conscience of the Court,” particularly when the punishment is disproportionate to the charges.
- Courts must provide reasons if they conclude that a punishment is excessive.
- The appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, maintaining fairness and proportionality.
The Court observed:
“However, it has also been held that, while doing so, the Court must assign reasons explaining what led it to conclude that the punishment shocks its conscience. Moreover, it is not open to the Court to substitute the punishment on its own rather, the appropriate course would be to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, so as to maintain a proper balance between the gravity of the charge and the punishment imposed, and to ensure that the punishment is not disproportionate.”
The Bench further noted:
“Such interference is permissible even on the ground that the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, particularly on the issue of proportionality meaning thereby, if the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. This can be a valid ground for the High Court to interfere with the order of punishment while exercising its power of judicial review.”
In this particular case, the Court noted that the petitioner had 31 years of unblemished service. Removal from service would have meant losing all pension and retirement benefits, which was disproportionate to the nature of the charges, particularly as there was no allegation of embezzlement or misuse of public funds.
The Court stated,
“If the order of removal from service was allowed to prevail, then the entire service period of 31 years would not be considered even for pension or any post-retirement benefits. Therefore, the consideration is to be made by going through the nature of the charge as alleged in the memorandum of charge…we have not found the nature of the allegation to be of such extent as to warrant the respondent-writ petitioner facing the consequence of denial of retiral or pensionary benefits. Furthermore, there is no allegation of any embezzlement of public money.”
ALSO READ: Let AI Assist, But Judges and Lawyers Must Be the Final Arbiters: Justice Surya Kant
Appearance:
For the Appellants: Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III
For the Respondent: Advocate Rahul Kumar
Case Title:
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Meena Kumari Rai
L.P.A.No.134 of 2025
