Court No. - 34
Reserved on :03.01.2019 Delivered on : 31.05.2019
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56194 of 2004
Petitioner :- Ram Lachan Prasad
Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- P.N. Dwivedi, Dinesh Pathak, Jai Shanker Upadhyay,
S.K. Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C., A.S.G.I., D. P. Srivastava, Gyan
Prakash, K.C. Sinha, O. P. Srivastava, Rakesh Sinha WITH
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42758 of 2004
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh, Ex-Constable Force No 922294048, CISF
Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- S.S.C.,Gyan Prakash,Ramesh Rai
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. In both these matters, petitioners have been punished in departmental proceedings and since both were parties to the same incident which has caused disciplinary proceedings, therefore, these two matters were connected and heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. For the purpose of appreciation of facts, I propose to narrate same separately and thereafter would deal both matters together since, issues raised in these matters are common.
3. Writ A No.56194 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'First Petition) has been filed by Ram Lachhan Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner-A') against order dated 05.07.2003 passed by Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF'), Unit A.T.P.P. Aanpara, District-Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Authority”) imposing punishment of dismissal; and appellate order dated 24.02.2004 (in the prayer this date has wrongly been mentioned as 24.02.2002) (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) whereby Deputy Inspector General, Eastern Zone Head Quarter, C.I.S.F. Complex, Patliputra, Patna has rejected appeal of Petitioner-A.
4. In prayer (A), petitioner has referred to two impugned orders as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. I may quote the prayer as it is :
“A. To issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorary Quashing the order dated 05/07/2003 passed by Respondent no.4 and the Order dated 24/02/2002 passed by Respondent no.3 (Annexure no.1 and 2 to this Writ Petition).”
(wrong date shown in bold)
5. However Annuexure-1, at page-20, claimed to be final order 05.07.2003, but it shows that copy of inquiry report was supplied to petitioner by aforesaid letter directing him to make representation, if any. Annexure-2 is an Office Memorandum dated 18.06.2003, which appears to be an inquiry report submitted by Sri H. Gangia, Inspector. There alongwith another document on Page 53 is the punishment order running in about 14 pages, and on page 65, para 7, shows that Commandant, CISF has imposed punishment of dismissal upon Petitioner-A. Appellate order is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition (Page 176).
6. Writ Petition No.42758 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Second Petition') has been filed by Pradeep Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner-B”) praying for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure-6, which is order dated 05.07.2003 issued by Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of dismissal upon Petitioner-B and denying full salary during period of suspension and confining it to the amount of subsistence allowance already paid. He has also challenged Annexure-8 to the writ petition which is order dated 24.02.2004 passed by Deputy Inspector Gneral, Eastern Zone Head Quarter, C.I.S.F. Complex, Patliputra, Patna dismissing departmental appeal of petitioner B.
7. Facts in brief, as borne out from record of both writ petitions are that both Petitioners-A and B were appointed as Constable in CISF and at the relevant point of time posted at Unit A.T.P.P. Aanpara, District- Sonebhadra. Both were placed under suspension by Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 09.12.2002. Both were issued charge sheet on 02.01.2003. Charge levelled upon Petitioner-A reads as under :
“vkjk si cy la0 894620021 vkj{kd vkj0,y0 izlkn ds vkSlqc bdkbZ] ,Vhihih vuijk us fnukad 08&12&2002 dks le; yxHkx 2230 cts cy la[;k 922294048 vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag ds lkFk ds vkSlqc ikfjokfjd ifjlj esa fLFkr cy la0 % 854460566 vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno ds DokVZj la[;k % ,l&1@189 ij x;k vkSj vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag us DokVz~j ds ihNs okys njoktk dh [kV[kVkdj njoktk [kksyok;k rFkk njoktk [kksyrs gh vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag us vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dk gkFk idM+ dj ckgj [khap fy;kA vkj{kd vkj0,y0 izlkn us jkM ls rFkk vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag us ykBh ls ihV&ihV dj vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dks cqjh rjg ?kk;y dj fn;kA chp&cpko o NksM nsus dh fourh dj jgh vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh iRuh Jherh dkS'kY;k nsoh dks xUnh&xUnh xkfy;kWa nh rFkk vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh iq= vuq;kno dks cykRdkj djus vkSj mBk ysus dh /kedh nhA”
“C H A R G E
On 08.12.2002 at around 22:30 hours, Force No. 894620021 Constable R.L. Prasad, CISF Unit, ATPP, Aanpara along with Force No. 922294048 Constable Pradeep Kumar Singh, went to house no. S-1/189 of Force No. 854460566 Constable Jagdish Yadav situated on CISF Family Quarters Campus, knocked the back door of his house, and got the same opened. As soon as the door opened, Constable Pradeep Kumar Singh pulled Constable Jagdish Yadav out by holding his hand. Constable R.L. Prasad and Constable Pradeep Kumar Singh injured Constable Jagdish Yadav badly by beating him with a rod and lathi respectively; used filthy language for Constable Jagdish Yadav's wife Smt. Kaushalya Devi, who had been intervening and requesting them to leave him; and threatened to abduct and rape Constable Jagdish Yadav's daughter Anu Yadav.”
(English translation by Court)
8. Two charges were levelled upon Petitioner-B and same reads as under :
“vkjk si u a0 &1 cy la[;k 922294048 vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag ds vkSlqc bdkbZ ,Vh ihih] vuijk fnukad 08&12&2002 dks le; 2100 cts ls 0600 cts rd r `rh;
ikjh eas ds vkSlqc dkyksuh xsV drZO; LFky ij fM;wVh eas rSukrh ds nkSjku le;
yxHkx 2230 cts cy la[;k 894620021 vkj{kd vkj ,y izlkn ds lkFk ds vkSlqc] ikfjokfjd ifjlj eas fLFkr cy l[;ka 854460566 vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno ds DokVj la0 ,l&01@189 ij x;k DokVj ds ihNs okys njokts dh [kV[kVk dj njoktk] [kksyok;k vkSj vkj{kd txnh'k dks DokVj ds ckgj [khp dj vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag us ykBh ls RkFkk vkj{kd vkj0 ,y izlkn us jkM ls ihV&ihV dj vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dks cqjh rjg ?kk;y dj fn;k chp cpko o NksM- nsus dh fourh dj jgh vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh iRuh dkS'kY;k nsoh dks vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag us /kDdk fn;k rFkk xUnh&xUnh xkfy;ka nh vkSj vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh iq=h vuq;kno dks cYkkRdkj djus dh /kedh nhA vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh cqjh rjg fiVkbZ djus ds i'pkr~ vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag vkSj vkj{kd vkj0 ,y izlkn us vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno rFkk mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks /kedh fn;k fd ;fn ?kVuk dh fjiksZVZ fdlh dks dh x;h rks os txnh'k ;kno dh iRuh dks fo/kok dj nsxas rFkk iq=h dks mBk ysxasA vkjk si u a0 &2 cy la[;k 922294048 vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag ds vkSlqc bdkbZ ,ydhihih vuijk dks fnukad 08-12-2002 ds le; 2100 cts ls fnukad 09-12-2002 ds le; 0600 cts rd ds fy, r`rh; ikjh eas dS0vkS0lq0c0 dkykuhs xsV drZO;
LFky ij fM;wVh gsrq rSukr fd;k tk;k FkkA fM;wVh esa rSukrh ds nkSjku fnukad 08&12&2002 dks le; yxHkx 2230 cts mDr vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag ,d vU; vkj{kd cy dzekad 892620021 A vkj0,y0izlkn ds lkFk feydj ds- vkSlqc ikfjokfjd ifjlj esa fLFkr cy la[;k 8544605665 vkj txnh'k ;kno ds DokVj la[;k ,l&1@189 ij x;k vkSj DokVj ds ihNs okys njokts dks [kV[kVk;k] [kV&[kV dh vkokt ij vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno }kjk njoktk [kksys tkus ij vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag us vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dks gkFk idM dj ckgj [khap fy;k vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dks cqjh rjg fiVkbZ dj ?kk;y dj fn;kA chp cpko rFkk NksM nsus dh fourh dj jgh vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh iRuh Jherh dkS'kY;k nsoh dks vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh iq=h vuq;kno dks mBk ysus vkSj cykRdkj djus dh /kedh nhA vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dks cqjh rjg fiVkbZ djus ds ckn vkj{kd iznhi dqekj flag us /kedh fn;k fd ;fn og vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dkyksuh xsV ij fjiksVZ djus tk;sxk rks esjh ogh fM;wVh gS ogh ij pkdw ekj nwaxk rFkk vkj{kd vkj0,y izlkn us vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno ds ifjokj] ds lnL;ksa dks /kedh fn;k fd ;fn ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ fdlh dks dh x;h rks os vkj{kd txnh'k ;kno dh iRuh dks fo/kok dj nsxsa vkSj iq=h tks mBk ysxasA ”
“Charge 1
Constable Pradip Kumar Singh, Force No. 922294048 of the CISF Unit, ATPP, Aanpara, during his assignment of his duty at the gate of the CISF Colony in the third shift from 21:00 hours to 06:00 hours on 08.012.2002, went along with RL Prasad, Force No. 894620021, at 22:30 hours, to the house no. S01/189 of constable Jagdish Yadav, Force No. 854460566, situated in the premises of the CISF Family Quarters Complex; and he, having knocked the back door, got it opened. Having dragged the constable Jagdish Yadav out of his house, Constable Pradip Kumar with a staff (lathi) and Constable RL Prasad with a rod, thrashed and injured him seriously; and Constable Pradip Kumar Singh abused and shoved Constable Jagdish Yadav's wife Kaushalya Devi, who meanwhile was trying to save him and begging to forgive him, and issued threat of committing rape on Anu Yadav, daughter of Constable Jagdish Yadav. After thrashing constable Jagdish Yadav badly, constable Pradip Kumar Singh and constable RL Prasad threatened to constable Jagdish Yadav and his family members that if they reported the occurrence to anyone, they would widow the wife of constable Jagdish Yadav and abduct (Utha lena) his daughter.
Charge 2
Constable Pradip Kumar Singh, Force No. 922294048 of the CISF Unit ATPP, Anapara, was deputed at the CISF Colony Gate for discharging his duties for third shift from 21:00 hours on 08.12.2002 to 06:00 hours on 09.12.2002; and he, during the period of being on duty at 22:30 hours on 08.12.2002, along with another constable, RL Prasad, Force No. 892620021, went to house no. S1/189 of Jagdish Yadav, Force No. 8544605665, situated in the CISF Family Quarters Complex, and knocked the house's back door. On the door being opened by constable Jagdish Yadav after hearing the knocks, Constable Pradip Kumar Singh grabbed his hand and dragged him out and injured him badly after thrashing him; and he threatened Jagdish Yadav's wife Kaushalya Devi, who meanwhile was trying to save him and begging to forgive him, that he would snatch (utha lena) constable Jagdish Yadav's daughter Anu Yadav and commit rape on her. Having badly thrashed constable Jagdish Yadav, constable Pradip Kumar Singh further threatened that if constable Yadav dared to report the occurrence at the gate of the colony where the former was on duty, he would strike him with a knife. Constable RL Prasad threatened the family members of constable Jagdish Yadav that if they dared to report the occurrence to anyone, they would widow constable Jagdish Yadav's wife and abduct (Utha lena) his daughter.”
(English translation by Court)
9. Petitioner-A demanded copies of documents relied in support of charges mentioned in Annexure-3 to Office Memorandum and same were supplied by letter dated 09.01.2003. Aforesaid documents are as under :
(I) Statement dated 09.12.2002 of Smt. Kaushalya Devi w/o Constable Jagdish Yadav
(II) Statement dated 09.12.2002 of Smt. Maina Devi, mother of Constable Jagdish Yadav
(III) Report dated 09.12.2002 at 08.30 A.M. Registered at Control Room vide General Diary No.406
(IV) Report of Enquiry Officer vide letter No.13/HQ/CISF/ATPP/02/1354 dated 09.12.2002
(V) Injury Report of Constable Jagdish Yadav dated 09.12.2002 issued by Medical Officer, Joint Hospital, Dibulganj, Aanpara
(VI) Application dated 09.12.2002 of Constable Jagdish Yadav to Station House Officer, P.S.Aanpara for registering FIR
(VII) General Diary Entry No.414 dated 09.12.2002
(VIII) Special Report dated 09.12.2002 by Sri Anil Kumar, Inspector in respect to incident
(IX) Medical documents dated 09.12.2002 (Medical Book) relating to treatment of Constable Jagdish Yadav issued by Project Hospital, Aanpara
(X) Documents in respect to referring Constable Jagdish Yadav to C.M.S., Hospital, Robertsganj issued by Medical Officer, Joint Hospital, Dibulganj, Aanpara
(XI) Statement dated 10.12.2002 of Constable Jagdish Yadav
(XII) Statement dated 10.12.2002 of Annu Yadav daughter of Constable Jagdish Yadav
(XIII) Statement dated 10.12.2002 of Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of Constable Jagdish Yadav
(XIV) Statement dated 10.12.2002 of R. K. Rai, Inspector
10. It appears that charges basically relates to the same incident, but departmental enquiry was conducted separately, though basically even evidences are similar.
11. The principal evidences to prove the charge are statements of Smt. Kaushalya Devi, wife of Constable Jagdish Yadav, who was examined in both matters as PW-1; Smt. Maina Devi, mother of Constable Jagdish Yadav as PW-2; Kumari Annu Yadav, daughter of Constable Jagdish Yadav as PW-3; Constable Jagdish Yadav as PW-4 and corroborative evidence of following witnesses :
(A) R. K. Rai, Inspector as PW-5
(B) Anil Kumar, Inspector as PW-6
(C) Fauja Singh, Constable as PW-8
(D) B. Kindo, Sub Inspector as PW-10
(E) Hiralal, Sub Inspector as PW-11.
12. Enquiry Officer found that allegation of assaulting Constable Jagdish Yadav proved by oral evidence as well as Medical Injury Report dated 09.12.2002, which proved injuries sustained by Jagdish Yadav. Consequently, Enquiry Officer vide report dated 18.06.2003 in respect of Petitioner-A and undated in respect of Petitioner-B, gave his finding as under :
Petitioner-A
"िनिष्कर्षर अभिभियोजनि पक्ष कर्े गवाह निंबर 1,2,3,4 जो घटनिा कर्े चश्मदीद गवाह है िकर् बयानिो से एकर् गवाह नि. 5 और 6 कर्े बयानिो तथा जगदीश यादव कर्े मेिडिकर्ल इंजरी िरपोटर से स्थािपत होता है िकर् आरक्षकर् आर एल प्रसाद निे योजनिाबद्ध तरीकर्े से आरक्षकर् पी कर्े िसंह कर्े साथ िमलकर्र िदनिांकर् 8-12-2002 कर्ो समय लगभिग 22.30 बजे आरक्षकर् जगदीश यादव कर्ो उसे क्वाटरर से बाहर लाकर्र रॉडि तथा लाठी से िपटाई कर्र बुरी तरह से घायल कर्र िदया तथा िपटाई कर्रनिे कर्े बाद उसकर्े पिरवार कर्े सदस्यो कर्ो धमकर्ी िदया िकर् यिद घटनिा कर्ी िरपोटर िकर्सी कर्ो कर्ही तो जगदीश यादव कर्ी पत्निी कर्ो िवधवा कर्र देगे तथा पुत्री कर्ो उठा लेगे अभतः बल सं.894620021 आरक्षकर् आर एल प्रसाद कर्े िवरुद्ध लगाया गया आरोप पण से िसद्ध होता है ।"
र रूप “Conclusion It is established from the statements of eye witnesses of the occurrence PW 1, 2, 3, 4, that of witness nos. 5 and 6 and from the medical injury report of Jagdish Yadav that Constable R.L. Prasad in collusion with Cons P.K.Singh in a planned manner on 8.12.2002 at around 22.30 hr pulled Cons Jagdish Yadav out of his house and caused serious injuries to him by giving blows of rod and staff (lathi). After beating him they threatened his family members, “If anyone dares to report the occurrence to anyone, they will widow Jagdish Yadav's wife and abduct his daughter”. Hence, charge levelled against Cons R.L.Prasad, Force No 894620021 is completely proved.”
(English translation by Court)
Petitioner-B
"िनिष्कर्षर सभिी गवाहो एवं दस्तावेजो कर्ा गहनितापूर्वरकर् अभध्धयनि कर्रनिे पर म िनिरीक्षकर्/कर्ायर एच गगया इस नितीजे पर पहुचा हँू िकर् आरोपी आरक्षकर् पी कर्े िसंह निे योजनिा बनिाकर्र तथा साथ मे आरक्षकर् आर एल प्रसाद कर्े समय जगदीश यादव कर्े घर पर टेलीफोनि मैसेज देनिे गया और थोड़ी देर बाद पीछे कर्ी तरफ कर्ा दरवाजा खट-खटाकर्र खलवाया और आरक्षकर् जगदीश यादव कर्ो जबरदस्ती पकर्ड़कर्र रोडि पर लाये और उक्त दोनिो आरक्षकर्ो निे लाठी, रॉडि से मारपीट कर्र बेहोश कर्र िदया एवं घटनिा कर्ी िरपोटर कर्रनिे पर जगदीश यादव कर्ो चाक़ूर् से मारनिे कर्ी धमकर्ी िदया साथ ही जगदीश यादव कर्ी पुत्री कर्ु मारी अभनिु यादव कर्ो उठा लेनिा एवं उसकर्े साथ बलात्कर्ार कर्रनिे कर्ी धमकर्ी िदया इस प्रकर्ार आरोपी बल सदस्य कर्े ऊपर लगाया गया आरोप अभिभियोजनि पक्ष गवाहो कर्े बयानिो उनिकर्े द्वारा प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजो साक्ष्य तथा आरक्षकर् जगदीश यादव कर्ी मेिडिकर्ल जांच िरपोटर कर्े आधार पर पूर्णर रूप से िसद्ध होता है। जांच प्रिक्रिया िनियम-2001 कर्े िनियम-36 कर्े तहत कर्ी गयी है श्रीमानि। "
“Conclusion On thorough examination of all the witnesses' statements and documents I, Inspector/ Executive H. Gagaiya come to conclusion that Constable P.K. Singh, person facingcharge accompanied by Cons R.L. Prasad in a planned manner went to Jagdish Yadav's house to convey telephonic message. After some time they got the rear door opened by giving knocks and forcibly pulled Cons Jagdish Yadav out to the road. Both the aforesaid constables assaulted him with lathi and rod, rendering him to be unconscious and threatened not to report occurrence, otherwise they would stab Jagdish Yadav with knife, abduct his daughter Anu Yadav and subject her to rape. Thus, on the basis of statements of the prosecution witnesses, documentary evidences produced by them and the medical examination report, the charge levelled against the force member facing charge is completely proved.
Sir, the investigation has been conducted under Rule 36 of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act 2001.”
(English translation by Court)
13. Copy of inquiry report was supplied by Disciplinary Authority to Petitioners. Thereafter, punishment orders have been passed. Thereafter, appeals have also been dismissed.
14. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that initially when enquiry report was submitted, Disciplinary Authority found some flaw therein and sought further clarification from Enquiry Officer and this vitiates the proceedings. He further submitted that his defence evidence has not been properly examined. Lastly, departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with fair procedure and punishment is very harsh.
15. However, I do not find any flaw in the departmental proceedings and none, as a matter of fact, could be pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners, despite repeated query. Enquiry Officer has recorded statements of witnesses who have clearly proved incident. From a bare perusal of statements, it is evident that incident was serious enough and the charges levelled against petitioners that they threatened another Constable Jagdish Yadav that they will kidnap his daughter and rape her and also beat him very badly, has been proved, not only by the girl herself, but other family members. The factum that Jagdish Yadav sustained serious injuries is founded true by medical evidence as also statement of R. K. Rai (PW-5), who sent Jagdish Yadav to hospital for treatment.
16. I repeatedly enquired from learned counsel for petitioners as to what procedural error or illegality in decision making process has been committed by Disciplinary Authority in departmental enquiry, but he could not point out any such error and only repeated that his evidence has not been believed by Authorities concerned.
17. I find that statement of wife of Petitioner-A has not been found trustworthy by Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority in the light of other overwhelming evidence, which proved guilt of petitioners and injuries sustained by Jagdish Yadav could not be explained by petitioners at all. Moreover, assessment of evidence, unless shown that there is some perversity or misreading, is within the realm of disciplinary Authorities concerned and this Court does not sit in appeal. Scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited. If findings of Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are based on evidence, sufficiency thereof cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction.
18. The scope of judicial review and interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings has been examined in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 2006 (2) ESC 1153, and after considering a catena of decisions on the subject, this Court has crystallized the aspects which can be examined by a Court and which may justify judicial interference and not otherwise, which are reproduced as under:
"(1) The Tribunal exercising quasi judicial functions neither bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor bound by the strict rules of evidence.
(2) They may obtain all information material for the points under enquiry and act upon the same provided it is brought to the notice of the party and fair opportunity is afforded to explain.
(3) The judicial enquiry is to determine whether the authority holding enquiry is competent, and whether the procedure prescribed is in accordance with the principle of natural justice.
(4) There should exist some evidence accepted by the competent authority which may reasonably support the contention about the guilt of the officer. Adequacy or reliability of the evidence can not be looked into by the Court.
(5) The departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal 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 Court.
(6) There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.
(7) The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice.
(8) It is not necessary that the Disciplinary authority should discuss material in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Office.
(9) The judicial review is extended only when there is no evidence or the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached on the basis of the material available."
19. The legal dictum with the passage of time has not gone under any substantial change and subsequent authorities of Apex Court also have reiterated what has been noticed above. In A. Savariar Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and another, 2013(3) SC 170, Court has said:
"The scope of judicial review in matters involving challenge to the disciplinary action taken by the employer is very limited. The Courts are primarily concerned with the question whether the enquiry has been held by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure and whether the rules of natural justice have been followed. The Court can also consider whether there was some tangible evidence for proving the charge against the delinquent and such evidence reasonably supports the conclusions recorded by the competent authority. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was held in consonance with the prescribed procedure and the rules of natural justice and the conclusion recorded by the disciplinary authority is supported by some tangible evidence, then there is no scope for interference with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority to impose the particular punishment except when the same is found to be wholly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved or shocks the conscience of the Court."
(emphasis added)
20. Mere repeated argument that enquiry has not been properly conducted without pointing out any defect in enquiry, cannot help the petitioners. Even then, I have gone through the entire record to satisfy myself whether enquiry has been conducted properly or not and do not find any procedural error in the proceedings, which may justify interference by this Court.
21. A desperate argument then was advanced with respect to quantum of punishment and it is said that petitioners have unblemished career and punishment of dismissal is highly disproportionate to charges found proved.
22. Here also, I do not find myself in agreement with above submission. Petitioners were members of a disciplined force i.e. C.I.S.F. Members of such service are they were expected to remain in a strict code of conduct so as to maintain law and order. Here petitioners themselves have shown a conduct which was highly objectionable, inasmuch, charges levelled against them is that they threatened another Constable Jagdish Yadav that they will kidnap his daughter and rape her and also beat him very badly. This conduct of petitioners cannot be said to be justified in any manner and when such charge has been found proved, punishment of dismissal cannot be said disproportionate.
23. Moreover, time and again, Courts have also considered the scope of judicial review in the matter of quantum of punishment. Such power of judicial review is limited. It cannot be done in a routine manner.
24. In Chairman and M.D. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Others Vs. T.K. Raju, 2006 (3) SCC 143 referring to earlier decisions in V. Ramanna Vs. APSRTC and Others (2001) 5 ALD 427 and State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Mohammad Ayub Naz JT 2006(1) SC 162, Court said that interference with the quantum of punishment should not be done in a routine manner.
25. In Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M. Lad, 2010 (5) SCC 775, Court held:
"In the matter of imposing of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons there for. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review."
(emphasis added)
26. In Charanjit Lamba Vs. Commanding Officer, Southern Command and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2462, Court held:
"... the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is something that rests primarily with the disciplinary authority. The jurisdiction of a Writ Court or the Administrative Tribunal for that matter is limited to finding out whether the punishment is so outrageously disproportionate as to be suggestive of lack of good faith. What is clear is that while judicially reviewing an order of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee the Writ Court would not assume the role of an appellate authority. It would not impose a lesser punishment merely because it considers the same to be more reasonable that what the disciplinary authority has imposed. It is only in cases where the punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of charge that no reasonable person placed in the position of the disciplinary authority could have imposed such a punishment that a Writ Court may step in to interfere with the same."
(emphasis added)
27. In the above caution, restriction and limitation, as also the expositions of law, it is clear that the Court have power of judicial review on the quantum of punishment if it is so outrageous and so excessive as to shock the conscience of a person of ordinary prudence and not otherwise.
28. In my view, in the case in hand, conduct of the petitioners is not such so as to make punishment disproportionate to the charges found proved against them.
29. It has been held repeatedly, if quantum of punishment is found shocking or so disproportionate as to no person of ordinary prudence would have come to such conclusion, only then Court may interfere and not otherwise. This Court in Veerpal Singh Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra & others 2006 (5) ADJ 318 has held as under:
"Lastly the petitioner contended that the punishment is harsh and not commensurating to the offence and therefore, is liable to be set aside. Once the misconduct of the petitioner has been found proved, the scope of interference in the matter of punishment is extremely limited. It is only when the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the act or omission constituting misconduct that it shocks the conscience of the court or a person of ordinary prudence, only then the court may interfere and not otherwise. In any country where bigamy is an offence, a government servant guilty of committing an offence cannot ask to continue in service after award of minor or lesser punishment. Therefore, I do not find any reason to hold that the punishment imposed in the present case is arbitrary or so disproportionate to the act of misconduct so so as to warrant interference by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the constitution."
30. In view of above, both writ petitions lack merit. Dismissed accordingly.
31. Interim order, if any, stand vacated.
Order Date : 31.05.2019 Manish Himwan