Banwari Lal vs State Of Hry And Ors

SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --2--
[2]. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of
the plaintiff-Banwari Lal with the averments that he was holding the post of
Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer (SDAO) under the Haryana Government
and was lastly posted as SDAO, Loharu, District Bhiwani, from where he
was removed from service vide order dated 12.09.1997 passed by the
Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Agriculture
Department. It was pleaded that during his earlier posting as SDAO, Nuh,
under the administrative control of defendant No.2-Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Gurgaon, a charge sheet dated 24.10.1988 was served upon him
levelling two charges, firstly, that he did not distribute 69 quintals and 18
kgs of Gram Seeds properly during the year 1982-83 and did not maintain
the record thereof in the stock register; and secondly, that he misplaced the
record relating to purchase of 60 litres of Aldrin 30 E.C. and thereby
misappropriated the same.
[2.1]. It was further averred that the plaintiff could not submit his
reply to the charge sheet as the relevant record which he wanted to inspect
was not made available to him. An Enquiry Officer of the Vigilance
Department was appointed vide letter dated 24.03.1989. The plaintiff
associated himself with the enquiry and proved the factum of distribution of
the gram seeds and also submitted that the record relating to purchase of
Aldrin was misplaced due to shifting of office. It was pleaded that before
completion of the enquiry, the plaintiff traced the record relating to
distribution of Aldrin at Nuh and supplied photostat copies thereof along
with his reply to the show cause notice, clearly proving that the entire stock
of Aldrin was duly distributed. It was averred that despite this, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report dated 01.09.1992 holding the plaintiff guilty of
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --3--
both charges, on the basis of which a show cause notice was served upon
him and his reply being found unsatisfactory, the punishment of removal
from service was imposed vide order dated 12.09.1997. It was further
pleaded that the said order, being illegal, void and ultra vires , was not
binding upon the plaintiff, who was entitled to be treated as continuing in
service with all consequential benefits.
[3]. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written
statement, taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability and
jurisdiction. On merits, it was pleaded that no request for inspection of any
record was ever received from the plaintiff, that he deliberately failed to
submit his reply to the charge sheet within the stipulated period, that he
himself associated with the enquiry proceedings but thereafter chose to
remain absent at the defence stage despite due intimation of the dates fixed,
that he was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine the departmental
witnesses and to lead defence evidence but failed to avail the same, and that
the charges levelled and proved against him being of a serious nature, the
punishment of removal was not disproportionate.
[4]. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed vide order dated 06.06.2000:-
" "1. Whether order of removal issued by commissioner and secretary to
the Govt. of Hr. are illegal, null, void and not binding on the plaintiff?
OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to all the arrears
of salary alongwith interest at the rate of 18% P.C.? OPP
3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD
5. Relief."
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --4--
[5]. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated
04.06.2005, upheld the validity of the enquiry proceedings, holding that no
illegality could be found therein. However, it went on to hold that the
punishment of removal imposed was disproportionate to the misconduct
proved, since the charges did not reflect upon the plaintiff's honesty or
integrity and he had rendered 34 years of service. The order dated
12.09.1997 was accordingly quashed on the point of quantum, with a
direction to the defendants to reconsider the question of imposing suitable
punishment ensuring that the plaintiff does not lose terminal benefits. The
plaintiff was further held entitled to 50% back wages between the period of
his removal and superannuation (30.04.2001) and to terminal benefits, but
not to interest.
[6]. Aggrieved thereof, the defendants-State filed an appeal before
the learned First Appellate Court. Vide judgment and decree dated
20.02.2006, the learned First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of
the learned Trial Court upholding the validity of the enquiry proceedings,
but reversed the finding on the point of quantum, holding that a Civil Court
would interfere with a punishment imposed on the administrative side only
where it shocks the conscience of the Court or is thoroughly disproportionate
to the charge proved, which was not so in the facts of the case. The appeal
was accordingly allowed with costs and the suit filed by the plaintiff-
respondent was ordered to be dismissed in its entirety. Hence, the present
Regular Second Appeal.
CONTENTION(S):
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF:
[7]. Impugning the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --5--
below, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the charge
sheet was served on incorrect facts and wrong allegations and that the
Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the rules and
regulations, nor afford full or reasonable opportunity to the appellant to
submit his defence or to examine his defence witnesses. It is submitted that
the enquiry was conducted in a highly illegal manner inasmuch as the
Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte against the appellant, even though he
could not attend the enquiry on 28.04.1992 on account of illness, duly
intimated to the Director of Agriculture, and his request for a further date
was not acceded to. It is further submitted that the appellant was not
permitted to effectively cross-examine the departmental witnesses, that the
enquiry report was biased in favour of the department, and that the finding
that the photostat copies of the Aldrin distribution record supplied by the
appellant were fabricated in collusion with the farmers was wholly
unilateral, inasmuch as no such charge was ever put to him nor was any
opportunity afforded to him to explain this opinion.
[7.1]. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment of removal
was disproportionate to the charges and excessively harsh, having regard to
the appellant's long standing service of 34 years, and that the learned First
Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned finding of the learned
Trial Court on quantum. Learned counsel submits that a Civil Court is
competent to examine whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to
the charge proved, and that this entitlement survived even in the absence of
any cross-appeal or cross-objections filed by the appellant before the First
Appellate Court. Thus, he prays that the judgments and decrees passed by
the learned Courts below, to the extent they upheld the validity of the
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --6--
enquiry proceedings, be set aside, and that the suit filed by him be decreed in
its entirety.
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/STATE:
[8]. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the judgment and
decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is based on a proper
appreciation of the pleadings and the material on record and does not
warrant any interference. It is submitted that the appellant never furnished
any reply to the charge sheet, nor placed any material on record to show that
inspection of records was ever sought and declined. He associated himself
with the enquiry and proved the factum regarding distribution of gram seeds,
but thereafter remained absent at the defence stage, neither cross-examining
the departmental witnesses nor leading any defence evidence, and the
belated production of the Aldrin record before the Civil Court, never having
been produced before the Enquiry Officer, was rightly treated as an
afterthought.
[8.1]. It is further submitted that a Civil Court would interfere with
punishment imposed on the administrative side only where it shocks the
conscience of the Court or is thoroughly disproportionate to the charge
proved. The charges, relating to accountability for government stores of
gram seeds and pesticide, were grave in nature, and the punishment of
removal cannot be said to be inappropriate or disproportionate. It is
accordingly prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING:
[9]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper book as well as the records of the case.
[10]. In the present case, the appellant-plaintiff assailed the validity
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --7--
of the enquiry proceedings as well as the order of removal passed against
him on 12.09.1997 while he was working as Sub-Divisional Agricultural
Officer, Loharu, District Bhiwani. As per settled law, the scope of
interference in a civil suit wherein challenge has been made to the enquiry
report or the termination order is limited to the extent that in case the
enquiry proceedings were carried out in violation of natural justice; no
effective opportunity was ever afforded to the plaintiff-delinquent officer to
defend himself in the enquiry proceedings; the enquiry proceedings were
held in violation of department rules; or the punishment imposed upon the
delinquent officer was disproportionate to the charges.
[11]. Taking up the plea of violation of natural justice first, no
material evidence has been brought on record by the appellant-plaintiff to
establish that the enquiry proceedings carried out against him were in
violation of principles of natural justice or any department rules/regulations.
Even no material was proved on record to establish that any application was
moved on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff for inspection of records. The
appellant-plaintiff did not even choose to cross-examine the witnesses of the
department. In such circumstances, no illegality or perversity can be found
in the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court.
[11.1]. It is further significant that at no stage, either in the plaint or in
his deposition, did the appellant-plaintiff plead or depose as to what
prejudice, if any, was caused to him on account of his inability to inspect the
record relied upon by the department, or on account of his not having cross-
examined the departmental witnesses. He merely asserted, in the abstract,
that the enquiry was vitiated on these counts, without indicating what he
would have shown or established had the record been made available to him
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --8--
or had he cross-examined the witnesses. Such a mere bald assertion cannot
take the place of pleaded and proved prejudice, especially in light of the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India,
2025 INSC 742, wherein it was held that a bare assertion of non-supply of a
document or denial of opportunity, without indicating the specific
disadvantage or handicap suffered on that account, is not sufficient, and that
courts are not bound to accept such an assertion without being satisfied that
actual prejudice was caused. The relevant portions thereof are extracted
hereunder:-
“21. No prejudice having been caused because of the nonsupply of the
preliminary Inquiry Report to the Appellant, the plea of violation of the
principles of natural justice would not be available to the Appellant. As a
matter of principle, violation of the principles of justice cannot be on the
touchstone of technical infringement made the basis of setting aside the
action taken by the authority against an employee unless it is established
that grave prejudice has been caused to an employee because of non-
supply of a particular document. Nothing has also come on record which
would indicate that the Appellant had ever sought for the Preliminary
Inquiry Report after the issuance of the chargesheet. Similar would be the
position with regard to the other documents also which are alleged to have
not been supplied to her as the nature and extent of disadvantage or
handicap caused or suffered by the Appellant, in the absence of the
documents, is missing in the departmental proceedings or the pleadings.
22. No grounds have been laid down indicating the prejudice which has
been caused to her either during the inquiry or at the stage of projecting
her response to the show cause notice given by the disciplinary authority.
Mere assertion that some documents have not been supplied or even
mentioning the said documents would not be enough unless the
consequential prejudice which would or has been caused to a delinquent
employee is put forth.
23. The Court is not bound to simply accept an assertion of a delinquent
employee and proceed to question the disciplinary proceedings without
being satisfied with regard to any prejudice having been caused to the
employee.
24. The position in law on this aspect as has been culled out by the
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --9--
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of  Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and Others
(1993) 4 SCC 727  followed and explained thereafter by this Court
expounded the doctrines of reasonable opportunity and natural justice to
have been conceived and evolved not as a mechanical or a ritualistic
formality, but as substantive principles intended to safeguard the rule of
law and to facilitate the assertion of legitimate rights by individuals. It
was categorically held that these principles are not to be invoked as mere
procedural sacred words that have magical effect when said on every
occasion, irrespective of context. The Court underscored the aspect as to
whether prejudice has in fact been occasioned to an employee by the non-
supply of the inquiry report which must be assessed with reference to the
specific facts and circumstances of each case. Upon such assessment, if it
is evident that no different outcome would have emerged even after the
inquiry report or documents had been furnished, to reinstate the employee
and grant him consequential benefits in such situation would amount to a
distortion of justice. In other words, it would amount to conferring a
premium upon misconduct and to stretch the doctrine of natural justice to
an illogical and unwarranted extent. Such an expansive and
indiscriminate application of the principle would, paradoxically,
undermine the very concept of justice it seeks to uphold.”
[11.2]. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
no prejudice having been pleaded or shown by the appellant-plaintiff on
account of the alleged non-supply of record or the alleged denial of
opportunity to cross-examine, this Court finds no merit in the plea raised
regarding violation of natural justice. It is also relevant to notice that even
the appellant-plaintiff's own explanation for his absence does not assist him:
though he claimed to have been suffering from illness on 28.4.1992, he
made no attempt to inform the Enquiry Officer telegraphically or
telephonically at the relevant time, and despite being duly informed by
registered letter of the next date of hearing fixed as 14.05.1992, he failed to
appear even on that date, with a further letter dated 04.06.1992 apprising
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --10--
him of the pendency of the enquiry also going unheeded. This conduct
shows that the appellant-plaintiff had every practical means available to him
to protect his participation in the enquiry, and his failure to avail of any of
them cannot now be pressed into service to allege denial of opportunity.
[12]. As regards the plea of disproportionality of punishment, it is no
doubt true that a penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct
proved would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Bhagat Ram
v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454 , the Hon'ble Apex Court
held:
"It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate
with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
[12.1]. However, the scope of judicial interference on this ground
remains a narrow one. In Union of India v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC 794 ,
the Hon'ble Apex Court, while explaining the limited scope of judicial
review over quantum of punishment, held that interference is warranted only
where the punishment is so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock
the conscience of the Court, observing:
“ 14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the
court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was
illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the
conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or
moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case
[Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948)
1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] the court would not go into the
correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the
court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The
scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making
process and not the decision.
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --11--
15. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the
court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten
litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate
punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal
course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would
be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate
Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”
[12.2]. In light of the principles discussed above, it may be noticed that
the charges proved against the appellant were that he did not properly
distribute 69 quintals and 18 kgs of gram seeds, and that he misplaced the
record relating to 60 litres of Aldrin 30 E.C., leaving its distribution
unaccounted for. These charges go to a public officer's accountability for
government stores meant for disbursal to farmers, and are grave in nature.
Given this gravity, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the
punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant was
disproportionate thereto.
[12.3]. Moreover, the appellant's long standing service of 34 years,
though a relevant consideration, cannot by itself dilute the gravity of the
proved misconduct so as to render the punishment excessive. In this regard,
it may be noticed that the learned Trial Court reduced the punishment
principally on the ground that the misconduct proved did not reflect upon the
plaintiff's honesty or integrity. However, the test of disproportionality is not
confined to whether the misconduct involves moral turpitude; it requires an
assessment of the gravity of the misconduct actually proved, which in the
present case relates to a public officer's failure to properly account for
government stores entrusted to him. In the humble opinion of the Court, the
finding of the learned Trial Court, proceeding solely on the touchstone of
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RSA-2231-2006 (O&M) --12--
honesty and integrity without addressing this aspect, cannot be sustained.
Tested on the touchstone laid down in K.G. Soni's case (supra) , the
punishment neither shocks the conscience of this Court nor is thoroughly
disproportionate to the charges proved.
[13]. Insofar as the plea regarding absence of a cross-appeal or cross-
objections is concerned, the same does not survive for consideration once it
is found, on merits, that the punishment imposed does not shock the
conscience of this Court nor is thoroughly disproportionate to the charges
proved.
RELIEF:
[14]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no
illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned First
Appellate Court, there being no misreading or misinterpretation of the
pleadings and the evidence available on record, the present appeal being
devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree dated
20.02.2006 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is upheld.
[15]. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
01.09.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
SONIKA
2026.09.08 17:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document