A (State) employer cannot award an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable punishment to an employee ruled a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices S. B. Sinha and Lokeshwar Singh Panta in the case of Man Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. on May 1, 2008.

Man Singh was serving as Sub-Inspector in Police Department, Rohtak. In July 1996, he was deputed as Incharge of a police party comprising of ASI Sucha Singh, HC Suraj Bhan and HC Vijay Pal for taking two Government vehicles from Chandigarh to Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) for repair.

HC Vijay Pal who was driving one of the vehicles purchased 12 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor at Kota (Rajasthan) and concealed them in the dickey of the car without the knowledge and consent of Man Singh.

On checking of the vehicles by the Excise Staff of Adilabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of alcohol were recovered from the luggage boot of the car being driven by HC Vijay Pal, which gave rise to the registration of a case against him for transporting liquor in violation of prohibitory orders of the State Government.

The Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, ordered a departmental inquiry against Man Singh and HC Vijay Pal, charging Man Singh with improper control over his subordinates which amounts to dereliction of duties and for the lapses of indiscipline as Police Officer.

The Inquiry Officer found Man Singh guilty of the charge on the basis of summary of allegations. He was punished with the stoppage of two annual future increments with permanent effect

Vijay Pal was, however, exonerated primarily because he was not convicted in the criminal case filed against him and after exoneration, he was promoted to the higher post, whereas the appeal and the revision filed by Man Singh against the order of punishment were rejected on the technical ground that he did not exercise proper and effective control over HC Vijay Pal at the time of commission of the Excise offence by him in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court which said that Man Singh’s employers cannot be permitted to resort to selective treatment to Man Singh and HC Vijay Pal.

It is a settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it.

The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals are to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of ‘fair play’ and reasonableness.

The principle is the same, namely, that there should be no discrimination between Man Singh and HC Vijay Pal as regards the criteria of punishment of similar nature in departmental proceedings. Man Singh and HC Vijay Pal were both similarly situated, in fact, HC Vijay Pal was the real culprit who, besides departmental proceedings, was an accused in the excise case filed against him by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for violating the Excise Prohibition Orders operating in the State.

The Supreme Court held that the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon Man Singh for exhibiting slackness in the discharge of duties during his visit to Hyderabad when HC Vijay Pal was found involved in Excise offence, as also the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities confirming the said order were unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and also against the doctrine of equality.

Man Singh deserved to be treated equally in the matter of departmental punishment initiated against him for the acts of omission and commission vis-à-vis HC Vijay Pal.

Although the Supreme Court said it would, in normal course, have remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh decision to be taken, it exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and decided the case on merits to avoid further delay.

The punishment awarded to Man Singh was set aside.

(This article is an edited extract of the judgment.)