STATE OF U.P. V. SHEO SHANKER LAL SRIVASTAVA AND ORS INSC 103

Name of the case- STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS SHEO SHANKER LAL SRIVASTAVA AND ORS

Year Decided- 2006

Facts- The Lok Ayukta's office disciplined the appellant, Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava, a stenographer who was hired in 1963 and later elevated to the position of Private Secretary. After the claimed misbehavior, a departmental investigation was started such as refusing to open his locked almirah holding undisposed files and using improper language. the Lok Ayukta personally carried out the investigation, even though the appellant objected to the appointment of an external inquiry officer,. The appellant's removal from service with compassionate allowance followed his conviction for misconduct. To make retirement mandatory, the High Court changed the penalty. The State filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, as did the appellant.

Issue- Whether the disciplinary process conducted by the Lok Ayukta fair and impartial, and did the High Court overstep by changing the punishment from removal to compulsory retirement?

Decision- The Supreme Court granted the State's appeal and denied the appellant's, upholding the disciplinary procedure and restoring the penalty of removal from service.

Majority Opinion Reasoning- The Supreme Court in light of the appellant's resistance to the appointment of an external inquiry officer, determined that the Lok Ayukta acted within its bounds. Clear misconduct was shown by the appellant's actions, which included refusing to cooperate with the investigation and failing to question witnesses or mount a defense. The necessity doctrine was used to support the validity of the Lok Ayukta's investigation. The Court underlined that unless the punishment is shocking to the conscience, which was not the case in this instance, the High Court should not meddle in its amount. The removal penalty was justified because the appellant's actions interfered with the Lok Ayukta's office's ability to function.

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning- No dissenting opinion was given in the case.

Impact of the case- This case demonstrates how the doctrine of necessity is applied in disciplinary proceedings and upholds the rule that absent extreme circumstances, judicial review should not affect the severity of punishment. It emphasizes how crucial it is to uphold accountability and discipline in public positions, particularly those involving the public's trust.