1. The petitioner, in present petition, has challenged order dated 4.7.2003 whereby the competent - disciplinary authority imposed penalty on the petitioner, pursuant to the departmental inquiry conducted in connection with the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner.
2. It appears that after delay of almost 9 years, the order of penalty has been brought under challenge by the petitioner.
3. By the impugned order dated 4.7.2003, the petitioner came to be reduced in the pay scale to the first basic pay in the applicable scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/-.
4. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has preferred present petition after almost 9 years.
5. The delay in challenging the said - impugned order is one of the main reasons in view of which the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.
6. Furthermore, it is also noticed from the record as well as on the submissions of the learned counsel that after considering the evidence on record of the departmental proceedings / inquiry, the inquiring authority came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, submitted his report - findings holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered the entire matter including the records of the departmental proceedings and the findings of the Inquiry Officer and upon such detailed consideration, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, upon following the prescribed procedure, the disciplinary authority passed the order imposing the penalty. The petitioner herein felt aggrieved by the decision of the disciplinary authority, had carried the matter before the departmental appellate authority. The appellate authority also, after considering the entire matter, concurred with the decision of the disciplinary authority and findings of the Inquiry Officer and did not entertain the appeal.
7. The said conclusions and findings by the Inquiry Officer which were considered by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority have been brought under challenge by the petitioner herein and it is requested by the petitioner that the Court may examine the contents which are essentially in nature of findings based on material on record, recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Even if the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner were to be taken into account, then also on consideration of the report it emerges that the Inquiry Officer has discussed the entire evidence and he has reached to the conclusions based on the material available on record and his conclusion appears to be one of the views possible on the basis of evidence on record. In this view of the matter, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Besides this, the said objection or contention as regards the conclusions recorded by the Inquiry Officer or the decision of the disciplinary authority concurring with the Inquiry Officer would not, in view of its nature, fall within the purview of judicial review. Furthermore, in view of the inordinate delay also, the Court is not inclined to undertake such process at this belated stage
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein had submitted before the Inquiry authority, disciplinary authority and appellate authority that the particular instruction was not given by him to the workmen. Learned counsel also contended that the petitioner had actually given different instructions which were not properly carried out by the workmen and therefore, the accident occurred. Hence, the petitioner should not be held liable for the said incident. It is clearly evident from the record that the Inquiry Officer has recorded sufficient, satisfactory and justifiable reasons for reaching the conclusions recorded in the findings - report. The disciplinary authority has, after examining the entire aspect, concurred with the said findings. Except making the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error or defect in the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or in the decision of the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority.
9. For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the delay in challenging the order (delay of almost 9 years) and also considering the limited scope of judicial review in the matter of findings of Inquiry Officer when the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority also concurred with the findings, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and requires to be rejected. Accordingly, present petition stands rejected.
(K.
M. THAKER, J.) (vipul) Top