The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rer/LJP/2016-11159, dated 20.11.2016 confirming the order passed by the 4th respondent in his Appellate Order No.V- 11014/CISF/L&R/Appl.(JP-VSSC(T)/(10/15) / 15/7997 dated.04.12.2015 confirming the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 12.08.2015 in his final order No.V/15014/CISF/VSSC/Disc/CT/LJP/IPRCM /2015-5145, and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits.
2.The petitioner is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force, Cochin Port Trust, Cochin, and he was proceeded departmentally under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001 by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, IPRC Mahendragiri, vide Memorandum No(1187) dated 24.04.2015 on the following article of charges:-
''ARTICLE-I "An act of highly prejudicial to good order, image and discipline of the Force, in that CISF No.043560013 Const/GD L.John Peter of CISF Unit IPRC Mahendagiri was detailed as salesman of Central Police Canteen, CISF Unit IPRC Mahendragiri. On 14.04.2015 at about 1400 hrs, 04 boxes of bulk quantities of CPC goods loaded from Central Police Canteen, CISF Unit IPRC Mahendragiri in a vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN-72 AU-2928 TATA ACE (regularly plying vehicle for milk distribution) illegally and proceeded outside the CISF Camp Mahendragiri to Valliyoor and unloaded the said goods of Central Police Canteen at Matha Store, Valliyoor. The above act on the part of No.043560013 Const/GD L.John Peter amounts of suppression of facts with malafide intension moral turpitude and gross misconduct which is unbecoming of a member of the Force. Hence the charge".
ARTICLE-II "An act of highly prejudicial to good order, image and discipline of the Force, in that CISF No.043560013 Const/GD L.John Peter of CISF Unit IPRC Mahendragiri was detailed as salesman of Central Police Canteen, CISF Unit, IPRC Mahendragiri entrusted to maintain canteen records also has miserably failed to maintain the canteen records properly which resulted in shortage of canteen stock as observed during special audit carried out by Insp/Exe Ajith.J on 16.04.2015. The above act on the part of No.043560013 Const/GD L.John Peter amounts to gross negligence, carelessness, misconduct which is unbecoming of a member of the Force". Hence, the charge". ARTICLE-III "An act of highly prejudicial to good order, image and discipline of the Force, in that CISF No.043560013 Const/GD L.John Peter of CISF Unit IPRC Mahendragiri was detailed as salesman of Central Police Canteen, CISF Unit IPRC Mahendragiri failed to sale the items of Central Police Canteen in a proper way and made variation on stock balance by retailing the items on credit basis without any proper Central Police Canteen bills which is against the CPC norms. Frequently, the bills for CPC goods having bill number from 5849 to 5883 have been prepared within 14 minutes on 14.04.2015 for manipulation. The above act on the part of No.043560013 Const/GD L.John Peter amounts misleading the administration, misconduct and moral turpitude which is unbecoming of a member of the Force. Hence, the charge".
3.The petitioner submitted his explanation denying charges and an enquiry officer was appointed who gave his findings after the completion of the enquiry, vide his report dated 19.07.2015 to the disciplinary authority holding that out of the three charges two are proved and one is not proved. The petitioner was given copy of the enquiry report to submit his objection and after receipt of the same and affording a due opportunity, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay for a period of five years. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed and thereafter preferred revision and the revision was also dismissed confirming the punishment. Challenging the orders passed by the original, appellate and revisional authorities, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stressed the point that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and that he has been made as scapegoat for other persons' mistake and even assuming without admitting that the charges are proved, punishment imposed is excessive, this Court is not inclined to advert to the said contentions.
5.The Hon?ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported AIR 1964 SC 477 (Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan and others has held that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or Tribunals where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record, can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued, if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, Court must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court.
6.In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.Sree Rama Rao, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Honble Apex Court had held as under:
?The departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts, and if there be some legally admissible evidence, on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a Writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution, if the enquiry has otherwise been properly held. Here, in the instant case, no document which has been created behind the back of the applicant, has been relied upon by the Enquiry officer, and all the documents relied upon were the creation of the applicant himself, under his own handwriting. This aspect has been appreciated by the Honble High Court also while setting aside his acquittal by the trial Court. Therefore, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the findings of the Enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, are not based on legally admissible evidence, and that no reasonable person could have arrived at on those findings on the basis of the material available. It is not as if any deposition of a witness had been recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the delinquent public servant, who is the applicant before us, or a copy thereof has not been given to him or a witness has been produced, and an opportunity has not been given to him, to cross examine that witness.
7.In yet another judgment, a Three-Judges Bench of the Honble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 484 has been pleased to hold as follows:-
?12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent office is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.?
8.Perusal of the impugned orders shows that after detailed enquiry and after examination of witnesses on both sides, the punishment has been imposed by a detailed order. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
3.The Inspector General, General Industrial Security Force South Sector, Near War Memorial, Chennai.
4.The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, DOS Head Quarters, Bangalore-560094.
5.The Commandant CISF Unit VSSC, Thumba, Kerala.
6.The Assistant Commandant CISF unit IPRC-
Mahendragiri, Tamilnadu..