SC Upholds the MP HC Order Over Relaxing Penalty on Employees for Having More Than Two Kids

Must Read

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Follow us

The Supreme Court received a Petition challenging the Order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Order relaxed the penalty imposed in District Court Establishment on judicial employees for having more than two kids.

Facts of the Case 

Clause (4) of Rule 22 of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, states that-

“Every government servant shall observe the policies regarding family welfare of the Government of India and the State Government. Explanation-For the purpose of this sub-rule, government servant having more than two children shall be deemed to be misconduct if one of them is born on or after 26-1-2000”.

Under this clause, proceedings against many employees were undertaken. A penalty was thereby imposed on them for committing misconduct by having more than 2 kids. The clause held bach the two increments of the employees with recurring effect. 

The affected employees challenged this penalty in the High Court. The HC observed that holding back the increment with a recurring effect as a penalty is disproportionate. Further, the HC observed that this penalty is against the principle of proportionality to the alleged misconduct. The HC administration challenged the Judgment before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The CJ SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian heard the matter. 

The Supreme Court further observed that the penalty imposed of holding back two-three increments with the recurring effect is unreasonable and against the principle of proportionality.

The Bench relied on the Judgement in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611 and stated that:

“Without disturbing the findings on the point of misconduct on account of explanation of Clause (4) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1965 and maintaining proportionality in the State to deal with the employees, who are in the employment, we hereby set aside the orders of penalty on quantum as imposed by the District Judges and also the orders passed by the appellate authority and it is directed that in order to maintain proportionality in all such cases which have been decided prior to commencement of the Rules of 2016, a penalty of Censure be imposed by the District Judges to all such employees.”

Court’s Decision

The Court held that: 

“We find no reason to interfere with this order of the High Court which is humane and appropriate for dealing with the alleged misconduct and we do not wish to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, insofar as it granted relief to judicial employees. Therefore, that portion of the order of the High court granting relief to the respondents, is hereby confirmed”

The Supreme Court upheld the Order passed by the MP HC.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -