Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010058412025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/285/2025 LACHIT DEKA S/O LATE MITHARAM DEKA, R/O VILL. AND P.O. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, PIN 781307 VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF LAW, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781001 3:DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE NALBARI 4:INQUIRY OFFICE CUM CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DIV) CUM ASSTT. SESSION JUDGE NALBARI For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Advocate. : Mr. S. Choudhury, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Borah, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.1. : Mr. H.K. Das, Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. Page No.# 2/5 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 15.09.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears for respondent No.1. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.7425/2022, the punishment imposed upon the appellant of withholding of 3(three) increments with cumulative effect for the remainder of his service tenure, was not interfered by holding that this was not in the domain of judicial review. 3. It appears that the appellant, while serving as a Peon in the Court of Munsiff No.2-cum-Magistrate, Nalbari, faced departmental proceeding with respect to an incident on 19.11.2019, when one of the files handled by him was later found to be missing. 4. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet alleging negligence in duty which led to disappearance of Court records. 5. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 02.02.2021 imposed the punishment of withholding of 3(three) increments of appellant with cumulative effect for the remainder of his service tenure. Page No.# 3/5 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider that the punishment imposed upon the appellant was too severe, considering the misconduct/negligence of performance of duty of the appellant. Such punishment would permanently affect his pay and pensionary benefits. That apart, the learned Single Judge, it has been argued, did not take into account that there was no deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant or was there any finding on record about his regular reckless in handling of files. It was a solitary incident where the appellant had left the premises only to find the record of a case missing when he returned. 7. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India –Vs- AGD Reddy :: (2023) 14 SCC 391, wherein the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings have been dealt with. 8. There is no gainsaying that the scope of judicial review against a departmental proceeding is very limited as this judicial review cannot be converted into a proceeding under appeal and, therefore, review of the decision of the Disciplinary Authority on merits would not be permissible. 9. The scope of Judicial Enquiry is only to examine whether the decision making process was legitimate and also for the purposes of ensuring that the findings are not without any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on some evidence, it would not be the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on evidence. Page No.# 4/5 However, in the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of the disproportionality of the punishment imposed upon the appellant. 10. True it is that during judicial enquiry, a Court has to operate only within narrow limits, but if the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, there could be judicial interference. 11. The earlier position of law, namely, that the adequacy of the punishment is within the domain of the Disciplinary Authority has undergone a change. The proportionality theory of punishment was invoked for the first time some times in the year 1983 but later the theory was well recognized and ensconced in the cases of Ranjit Thakur –Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (1987) 4 SCC 611 and Union of India & Anr. –Vs- G. Ganayutham :: (1997) 7 SCC 463. 12. These judgments reflect that proportionality in punishment is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and requires interference by courts of law if it is outrageously disproportionate. 13. The appellant served as Peon with no charge of being negligent in his tenure. A solitary incident, where the record of one of the files went missing and the appellant, being the last person, who was in-charge of the records, ought to have been seen in that perspective. 14. We have not found any finding of the Disciplinary Authority that such disappearance of the file was because of deliberate conduct of the appellant. 15. Considering this aspect of the matter, we find that withholding of Page No.# 5/5 3(three) increments with cumulative effect, and that also for the entire tenure of service of the appellant, is on the excessive side, severity of which stirs and goads us to set aside the impugned judgment and order and the punishment imposed upon the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority and remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for taking a fresh view on the issue of quantum of punishment. 16. We order accordingly. 17. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority shall be taken within a period of 8(eight) weeks, to be counted from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. Needless to say that the Disciplinary Authority shall give a hearing to the appellant and would not be bound by our observations in this appeal. 19. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant