High Court under Article 226 cannot routinely modify disciplinary penalties unless extraordinary circumstances warrant an exception.

The Petitioner, an Electrical Operator in the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for allegedly running a water supply business through lorries registered in his wife’s name and misusing his office

Following an enquiry report that proved the charges, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of withholding increments for five years with cumulative effect

The Writ Court found the Petitioner guilty of misconduct for failing to disclose the purchase and use of the lorry but modified the quantum of punishment to withholding increments for two years with cumulative effect

Both the employee and the Board filed intra-court appeals against this modification

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226, has the jurisdiction to modify the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority

2. Whether the modification of punishment by the Writ Court was legally sustainable in the absence of extraordinary circumstances

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the High Court’s role is to ensure the decision-making process complies with statutes and rules, rather than reviewing the decision itself

It relied on the doctrine that the power to determine the quantum of punishment rests solely with the disciplinary and appellate authorities under the relevant Service Rules

The "exception rule" was noted, specifying that courts should only interfere with punishment in "extraordinary and exceptional circumstances" where gross injustice is evident and remanding would cause further prejudice

The Division Bench observed that the Writ Court had essentially usurped the powers of the disciplinary and appellate authorities by substituting its own judgment on the quantum of punishment for that of the competent authority

The Court reasoned that judicial review cannot be expanded to include the routine modification of penalties, as the authority on the ground is better positioned to assess the nature of the misconduct

While the Bench agreed with the Writ Court’s factual finding regarding the employee's misconduct (non-disclosure of the lorry purchase), it held that the correct legal procedure upon finding the punishment disproportionate—or when seeking modification—is to remit the matter back to the employer rather than the Court deciding the new penalty itself

Consequently, the order of the Writ Court dated 29.10.2018 was set aside

The Court remanded the matter back to the Board (CMWSSB) with directions to reconsider the quantum of punishment and pass a fresh order expeditiously