1. The petitioner has invoked Articles 14 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge orders dated 30.10.1987 and 20.8.1991 imposing and modifying punishment pursuant to the serious charges proved against him. While serving as an armed police, in the year 1983, a complaint for taking bribe of Rs.100/- was made against the petitioner and, on the basis of such complaint, a regular enquiry was held after serving chargesheet upon him. The charge was held to have been proved at the enquiry and, by order dated 30.10.1987, punishment of reduction in rank for two years was imposed upon him. Taking that order into revision, Deputy Chief Police Commissioner, Vadodara imposed punishment of removal from service, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. That order and punishment were confirmed in appeal by Director General of Police by order dated 17.01.1991. Against that latter order, the petitioner approached the State Government with an appeal, and final order dated 20.8.1991 was issued modifying the punishment and removal and it was converted to punishment of compulsory retirement.
2. Learned counsel Mr.S.P.Majmudar, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the whole case of offer and acceptance of bribe was based on an interested complainant, who filed his complaint after many days and cited his brother as a witness. The deposition of such witness could not have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer for holding that the charge was proved. He further submitted that the chargesheet was defective insofar as exact time and place of payment of bribe was not mentioned and the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of properly defending himself at the enquiry. He pointed out from the order of the State Government that it was held by the respondent that the chargesheet was defective.
3. Learned A.G.P. has, relying upon recent decision of the Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra &
Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad [(2010) 5 SCC 775], submitted that High Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by disciplinary authority with regard to imposition of punishment unless the discretion exercised by appropriate authority was suffering from illegality or material procedural irregularity. He also submitted that imposition of punishment was dependent on host of factors, such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment where he works. It is categorically held that ordinarily Court or Tribunal could not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
4. In view of the evidence led at the enquiry against the petitioner and its repeated appreciation by the whole hierarchy of officers, it would be improper and in fact impermissible to reappreciate the evidence in order to hold that the evidence led in support of the charges was insufficient. Once the charge was held to have been proved and the finding of the enquiry is not held to be perverse, there was extremely limited scope for interfering with the punishment. In the facts of the present case, the final order of punishment being not shockingly disproportionate to the charge held to have been proved, no interference is required. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(KMG Thilake) Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.)