Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: January 20, 2015
% Judgment Delivered on: February 11,2015
+ W.P.(C) 6549/2013
AMITABH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Rekha Palli, Ms.Punam Singh &
Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. The petitioner assails the order dated August 19, 2013 whereby he has
been dismissed from service. He prays to be reinstated in service with
consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts giving backdrop of the petitioner being dismissed from
service are that while working as a Deputy Commandant in the Central
Reserved Police Force (CRPF), in May, 2007 the petitioner was nominated as a
Member of a Recruitment Board for appointing ASI (Stenographer) and
HC(Min.) at the Group Centre of CRPF in Muzaffarpur. Dr.Bhavna Kumari in
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 1 of 17
the medical cadre of CRPF was a Member Medical in the Board. The
petitioner claims that on May 08/09, 2007 he caught Dr.Bhavna Kumari
copying on a loose sheet a passage on which the candidates would be subjected
to the typing test. It appears that rather than bring the incident to the notice of
the superior officers, cautioning Dr.Bhavna Kumari not to indulge in illegal
practice, the petitioner destroyed the sheet of paper on which he claims he saw
Dr.Bhavna Kumari copying the passage. On May 12, 2007 a candidate was
caught with a pre-typed paper of the passage in question. On May 19, 2007 the
petitioner detected a case of impersonation during the recruitment process. FIR
No.5/2007 and FIR No.6/2007 were registered. The investigation was taken
over by CBI because of the wide ramification of the scam. Investigation
revealed involvement of many officers.
3. The petitioner received summons to depose as a witness in FIR
No.6/2007, for which he was granted three days’ casual leave from September
15, 2009 to September 17, 2009, with permission to avail restricted holiday on
September 18, 2009. The parents and the family of the petitioner were residing
in Muzaffarpur, and as per the petitioner being conscious of the recruitment
mafia operating in the area and that he would not be provided with any
protection or vehicle, he claimed to have attended the Court of the CJM,
Muzaffarpur armed with a personal licensed revolver and travelled in a Maruti
Alto vehicle owned by his younger brother Abhik Singh. During Court
proceedings, on September 14, 2009, Dr.Bhavna Kumari who was examined as
a prosecution witness turned hostile and did not identify the accused. On that
day, at about 14:00 hrs, Dr.Bhavna Kumari received a call on her mobile from
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 2 of 17
her husband who extended invitation to the petitioner for a get-together at the
Station Officers Mess (SOM). While returning from the Court, Dr.Bhavna
Kumari and one Mr.M.G.Nair accompanied the petitioner in his car. The
petitioner claims to have dropped Dr.Bhavna Kumari at her official residence at
Jhaphan Camp and alongwith Mr.M.G.Nair he went to the Stations Officers
Mess where they remained in the lounge for about two hours.
4. At a get-together in the evening of the same day, Dr.S.K.Rai, husband of
Dr.Bhavna Kumari joined them and all had a peg or two of liquor at the SOM.
Dr.S.K.Rai accompanied by his wife Dr.Bhavna Kumari left the get-together at
about 19:30 hours. The petitioner and Dr.S.K.Rai spoke at around 20:39 hours,
using their respective mobile phones having number 9968885333 and
9955676272. The petitioner claims that after about 15 minutes Dr.Bhavna
Kumari contacted him on his mobile phone and insisted that he should visit
their residence, but the petitioner refused. At about 21:35 hours, the petitioner
received a call from the DIG of the Group Centre who asked the petitioner to
leave the SOM immediately. One Constable Driver Manoj Kumar also
communicated this direction of the DIG to the petitioner. As the petitioner was
leaving the SOM, he claims that his car did not start. At that point of time, he
was called by someone by giving a signal through his finger. The petitioner
went towards that person who introduced himself as S.P.Pokhriyal, DIG of the
Group Centre. As per the petitioner the DIG misbehaved with him and directed
him to go home in a minibus. The petitioner requested that a mechanic should
be arranged to rectify the defect in his car. But DIG S.P.Pokhriyal continued to
misbehave with him, which was witnessed by many officers. At that time
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 3 of 17
Assistant Commandant K.P.S.Elango arrived and with the help of Constable
Driver Manoj Kumar got the car to start. As per the petitioner he was deprived
of his licensed revolver forcibly as also his mobile phone and was locked in a
room in the SOM. As per the petitioner, the next day i.e. September 15, 2009,
he was called to the office of the DIG and in presence of the Commandant he
was abused and pressurized to either withdraw his complaints regarding
recruitment under threat of being booked for creating nuisance at the residence
of the DIG using a loaded revolver. As per the petitioner he was informed of a
complaint being made against him by Dr.Bhavna Kumari and was coerced by
the DIG to right a written note of apology. As per the petitioner whereas his
mobile phone was returned but the revolver was kept in custody by the DIG.
5. The family members of the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of
the CJM concerning his alleged illegal confinement and even the petitioner
filed a written complaint with PS Ahiya Pur and returned to Delhi on
September 20, 2009.
6. On September 22, 2009 the petitioner was served with a suspension
order dated September 16, 2009. The presidential memorandum dated October
30, 2009 alleging following four Articles of Charge of misconduct against the
petitioner was served upon him on November 07, 2009.
Article-1
“That Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy.Commandant of 103 RAF while on attachment
and functioning as Dy.Commandant in Central Police Canteen, New Delhi was
sent on Govt. duty to Muzaffarpur (Bihar) on 10/09/09 to attend a Court case,
committed an act of serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009 at about 2055
hrs, in a drunken state he misbehaved with Dr.(Mrs.) Bhawna Kumari, SMO,
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 4 of 17
GC Muzaffarpur on her mobile using obscene language. Thus, the said officer
failed to main absolute devotion to duty being an Officer and acted in a
manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the
provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
Article-2
That during the aforesaid period, Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy.Commandant of
103. RAF while on attachment, functioning as Dy.Commandant in Central
Police Canteen, New Delhi and sent on Govt. duty to Muzaffarpur(Bihar)
committed an act of serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009 at about 2245
hrs to 2250 hrs, after consuming liquor and in an inebriated state, he entered
the residential premises of DIG Muzaffarpur in a highly agitated manner by
pointing a loaded revolver (No.32 17-3.25 bore) at No.940110464 CT/GD
George Bara, security-aide of DIG and took him as hostage and compelled
him to call the DIG, GC, Muzaffarpur using abusive language. Thus, the said
officer failed to maintain absolute devotion of duty being a responsible officer
and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby
violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964.
Article-3
That during the aforesaid period Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy. Commandant of
103 RAF while functioning as Dy. Commandant on attachment in Central
Police Canteen, New Delhi while on Govt. duty to Muzaffarpur (Bihar) on
14/09/2009 committed an act of serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009
after 2245 hrs, he without any provocation and in an inebriated state, holding
private revolver in his hand, used abusive language and threatened the DIG,
GC, Muzaffarpur of dire consequences and thereby forced DIG to come out of
his residence in the thick of night and insulted him. Thus, the said officer failed
to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a
Government servant and there by violated the provisions contained in Rule
3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 5 of 17
Article-4
That during the aforesaid period, Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy. Commandant
of 103 RAF while functioning as Dy. Commandant on attachment with Central
Police Canteen and while on Govt. duty at Muzaffarpur committed an act of
serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009, after 2245 hrs, compelled Shree
S.P.Pokhriyal, DIG, GC, Muzaffarpur to come out from his residence at GC
Muzaffarpur using abusive language and made false and ill conceived
allegations against Shree S.P. Pokhriyal, DIG, GC, Muzaffarpur without any
basis that his car No. BR-06-R-0863 was damaged while he was consuming
liquor in the GO’s mess. Thus, the said officer failed to maintain absolute
devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant
and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
7. The petitioner denied the charges and hence an inquiry officer was
appointed to record evidence and submit a report. The prosecution examined
14 witnesses and the petitioner 6 in defence. The inquiry officer submitted the
inquiry report dated July 10, 2012 opining that no charge had been proved
against the petitioner.
8. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the report giving tentative
reasons in a note of disagreement, copy whereof was sent to the petitioner for
his response.
9. The petitioner submitted a detailed point-wise response dated January
08, 2013 to the disciplinary authority which examined the response of the
petitioner in the light of evidence produced during inquiry proceedings and on
forming an opinion that the petitioner had not been able to bring any material
evidence to refute the charges levelled against him or put forth any new fact,
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 6 of 17
tentatively decided to impose suitable penalty in consultation with UPSC on
quantum of penalty to be imposed.
10. On receiving the advice of UPSC vide Letter No.F.3/161/2013-SI dated
July 10, 2013 and considering the evidence adduced against the petitioner
during inquiry proceedings, vide impugned order dated August 19, 2013 passed
in the name of President of India penalty of dismissal from service was
imposed on the petitioner.
11. Since the punishment awarded to the petitioner was by President of India
and as per Rule 22(1) of CCS Rules, no appeal lies, hence this writ petition.
12. Written submissions have been filed by learned counsel for the parties.
Record of disciplinary proceedings has also been relied upon by the
respondents, which we have perused.
13. At the outset, we may mention that in the writ petition, the petitioner has
taken the plea (Ground No.U) that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
as he had not been furnished with the copy of UPSC advice before passing the
order of dismissal. In the written submissions filed by the petitioner on January
21, 2015 and January 29, 2015, the petitioner has not pressed this ground
giving to an impression that the petitioner is not desirous of disposing of this
writ petition on technical grounds by remanding the matter to be reconsidered
by the competent authority and expect a verdict from this Court touching the
merits of his claim.
14. We are conscious of the legal position laid down by Supreme Court in
AIR 2014 SC 2541 Union of India & Ors. v. R.P.Singh. Had this point been
pressed by the petitioner the matter would have required remanding the same to
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 7 of 17
the concerned authorities to provide an opportunity to the charged officer to
submit representation if he so desired and on consideration of representation, if
any, given by the charged officer to pass necessary orders.
15. Thus we have undertaken the mammoth task of perusing the voluminous
record of disciplinary proceedings.
16. Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner while
claiming it to be a dismissal passed on no evidence, raised following issues:-
(i) Petitioner who was complainant in two FIRs No.5/2007 and 6/2007 did
not accede to the request of Dr.Bhavna Kumari not to pursue his complaints
hence charges were fabricated against him at the instance of Dr.Bhavna Kumari
to divert attention from the ongoing cases (FIR No.5/2007 and FIR No.6/2007).
(ii) The alleged eye witness Ct.George Bara PW-9 was not even present at
the site or on duty and other eye witness Ct.Deen Dayal Singh PW-10 bore
grudge against the petitioner for his misconduct in the year 2008 with the wife
of the petitioner.
(iii) DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 coerced the petitioner to write an apology letter
(DEx-II/PEx-VIII) which also carries correction with pencil by DIG himself.
(iv) The get-together at SOM was organized by S.K.Rai husband of
Dr.Bhavna Kumari and as per PW-6, 7 and 8 who were in the get-together, the
petitioner was in his senses.
(v) The petitioner was called by DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 to his residence.
(vi) When the petitioner was harassed, he called up the emergency number of
CRD, CRPF Directorate from his mobile is established from the CDR (page
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 8 of 17
No.405) of the petitioner showing outgoing call of 147 seconds to CRD and
incoming calls of 435 seconds from CRD to his mobile.
(vii) Unusual conduct of K.P.S.Elango, Assistant Commandant PW-2 of not
disclosing the fact of the petitioner being locked and about the seizure memo
being prepared as well his (PW-2) entering the DIG’s house without informing
DC (Administration) or taking armed Sentry on coming to know about the
petitioner being present there with fire arm.
(viii) The Daily Report given by DC (Administration) does not refer to any
such instance on the night of September 14, 2009 nor any entry was made in
GD Register about any such instance.
(ix) The order by Commissioner, Tirbut Division, Muzaffarpur observing
that about the charge of misuse of weapon by the petitioner was concocted.
(x) Submissions of Presenting Officer that three out of four charges were not
proved against the petitioner and reasons by the inquiry officer for arriving at
the conclusion that the charges were not proved.
(xi) Disagreement note dated November 30, 2012 was motivated to somehow
punish the petitioner and the reasons given in the disagreement note by
disciplinary authority with respect to the report of inquiry officer were without
any basis. Dr.Bhavna Kumari and DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 being resident of
the same Complex, the DIG was swayed by the first complaint made by
Dr.Bhavna Kumari. The DIG not only illegally confined the petitioner but also
made him to confess nuisance by him at the residence of DIG by making him to
write an application for return of his mobile and car keys.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 9 of 17
17. Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted
that the Disciplinary Authority was within its power to record a disagreement
note and thereafter call upon the charged officer to submit representation, if
any. The petitioner did submit the representation and after taking into account
the material on record against the petitioner and the plea taken in the
representation and in consultation with UPSC the penalty of dismissal has been
imposed. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since there is
neither any violation of rules nor principles of natural justice and in view of the
serious misconduct proved against the petitioner, even the punishment awarded
to him also cannot be termed as not commensurating with the gravity of
offence, hence no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its
power of judicial review.
18. The rival contentions shall be considered in the light of legal position on
the power of Disciplinary Authority after the inquiry report has been submitted,
the standard of proof required in the disciplinary proceedings and the scope of
jurisdiction of the High court for judicial review on the findings of Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority.
19. It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the
finding of the inquiry officer provided that on the basis of material on record,
reasons for disagreement with the finding of the inquiry officer are recorded.
The findings of inquiry officer are his opinion on the material which has no
binding effect on the Disciplinary Authority. As a decision making authority,
the Disciplinary Authority can come to its own conclusion on the basis of
material available as well taking note of the opinion expressed by the inquiry
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 10 of 17
officer. The Disciplinary Authority need not contest the conclusion of the
inquiry officer for each charges. It was so held in AIR 2000 SC 22 The High
Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Sashikant S.Patil & Anr. in para 19 and 21 as
under :
“19. The reasoning of the High Court that when the Disciplinary
Committee differed from the finding of the Inquiry Officer it is
imperative to discuss the materials in detail and contest the
conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, is quite unsound and contrary to the
established principles in administrative law. The Disciplinary
Committee was neither an appellate nor a revisional body over the
Inquiry Officer's report. It must be borne in mind that the inquiry is
primarily intended to afford the delinquent officer a reasonable
opportunity to meet the charges made against him and also to afford
the punishing authority with the materials collected in some inquiry as
well as the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer thereon. The
findings of the Inquiry Officer are only his opinion on the materials,
but such findings are not binding on the Disciplinary Authority as the
decision making authority is the punishing authority and, therefore,
that authority can come to its own conclusion, of course bearing in
mind the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer. But it is not
necessary that the Disciplinary Authority should "discuss materials in
detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer". Otherwise
the position of the Disciplinary Authority would get relegated to a
subordinate level.
21. Thus the Division Bench of the High Court has not approached
the question from the correct angle which is evident when the Bench
said that it is imperative for the Disciplinary Committee to discuss
materials in detail and contest conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The
interference so made by the Division Bench with a well considered
order passed by the High Court on the administrative side was by
overstepping its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 11 of 17
20. As the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner culminated into his
dismissal, in order to satisfy ourselves, we have considered the statement of the
prosecution witnesses as well defence witnesses recorded by the inquiry officer
as well the documents exhibited by the parties during inquiry proceedings. We
have also considered the inquiry report as well the note of disagreement given
by the Disciplinary Authority and the advice received from UPSC. We find
that the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority in the disagreement
note are based on evidence available in the disciplinary inquiry against the
petitioner. Though not necessary we note hereunder certain material facts
which were established during inquiry and not controverted by the petitioner in
his statement:
(i) The petitioner had gone to the Court of CJM, Muzzafarpur armed with a
weapon in a private vehicle owned by his brother and during return journey
Dr.Bhavna Kumari accompanied him and dropped by him at her residence.
(ii) There was a get-together at SOM on the evening of September 14, 2009
where petitioner as well other participants consumed liquor and Dr.S.K.Rai,
husband of Dr.Bhavna Kumari was also participating till he left at about 7.30
pm to join some other commitment.
(iii) The petitioner had called from his mobile to the mobile of Dr.S.K.Rai
and had also talked to Dr.Bhavna Kumari.
(iv) While in SOM the petitioner received a message from DIG S.P.Pokhriyal
PW-1 at 2132 hours to leave the SOM in view of the complaint of misbehavior
made by Dr.Bhavna Kumari against the petitioner.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 12 of 17
(v) There was an incident at the residence of DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 on
the night of September 14, 2009. When hot words exchange was going on
between the petitioner and DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1, K.P.S.Elango PW-2
intervened, the petitioner was armed at that time and had consumed liquor at
the SOM.
(vi) The petitioner was removed from there by K.P.S.Elango PW-2. The
vehicle was driven by K.P.S.Elango PW-2 and he had also taken away the
weapon, mobile and car keys of the petitioner and kept the petition in a room in
SOM.
(vii) On the next day i.e. on September 15, 2009 the petitioner was taken to
the office of DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 where Commandant was also present.
The petitioner had given a written application referring to the unpleasant
incident at the residence of DIG S.P.Pokhriyal on the previous night with
request to return his mobile, car and weapon.
(viii) While car keys and mobile were ordered to be returned, the weapon was
not returned for reasons of safety.
(ix) On September 15, 2009 itself the inquiry was ordered into the incident
and all concerned were asked not to leave the station/camp without the
permission of DIG.
(x) DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 was not even known to the petitioner prior to
that date and whatever communication was made by him asking the petitioner
to leave the SOM was by calling on his mobile and subsequently when the
petitioner came out of SOM and his car did not start at the residence of DIG
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 13 of 17
S.P.Pokhriyal which was a few meters away from SOM separate by hedge
only.
(xi) K.P.S.Elango PW-2 happened to be present there to clear the mess
charges as he alongwith his unit was set to leave early in the morning on
September 15, 2009. He happened to notice the incident between two senior
officers i.e. DIG S.P.Pokhriyal and Deputy Commandant Amitabh Singh i.e.
the petitioner and tried to defuse the situation.
21. We may record here that the motive for false implication being attributed
to Dr.Bhavna Kumari and DIG S.P.Pokhriyal to pressurize the petitioner to
withdraw the two cases being FIR No.5/2007 and FIR No.6/2007 or he being
falsely implicated at the instance of Dr.Bhavna Kumari whom he caught red
handed while copying a passage meant for typing test, is not established. This
is for three reasons :
(i) Both the FIRs being State cases and status of Dr.Bhavna Kumari as well
as of the petitioner being that of prosecution witnesses only, the petitioner had
no power to withdraw the above State cases.
(ii) When the petitioner did not make complaint against Dr.Bhavna Kumari
and destroyed the passage copied by her, this gesture of the petitioner rather
saved the profession career of Dr.Bhavna Kumari. So she had hardly any
reason to nurture any grudge against the petitioner.
(iii) Travelling alongwith Dr.Bhavna Kumari, dropping her at her residence
and taking liquor with her husband at the get-together at SOM, invitation by
Dr.Bhavna Kumari to visit her residence are indicating cordial relations
between them.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 14 of 17
22. No doubt, from the call details record of the mobile of the petitioner the
only inference can be about some talk between the petitioner and Dr.S.K.Rai or
Dr.Bhavna Kumari contents of which are neither quoted by Dr.Bhavna Kumari
or her husband nor by the petitioner. But the fact that Dr.Bhavna Kumari
called DIG S.P.Pokhriyal through intercom (they were residing in the same
campus) and only thereafter the petitioner was asked to leave the SOM taking
offence of his conduct towards Dr.Bhavna Kumari stand established.
23. A plea has been taken by the petitioner that he was coerced to write the
letter dated September 15, 2009 which as per him is confirmed by two lines
scribbled by DIG on the back of DEx-II. This letter was written by the
petitioner on September 15, 2009 and on the same day an order was passed to
return the keys of the car and mobile phone but revolver to be kept in Kote for
safety reasons till inquiry was completed. The petitioner was permitted to leave
SOM on September 17, 2009, thereafter the petitioner never informed his
Superior Authorities about he being coerced to write this “confession” by DIG
S.P.Pokhriyal. DIG S.P.Pokhriyal when appeared as PW-1, the question No.23
put to him in this regard and answer given by him reads as under:
“Q.23 : Kindly see this application (showing an application to PW-1)
and tell whether two phrases written with pencil on the back side of this
application have been written by you or by some other person?
Ans : Mr.Amitabh Singh is an officer of a disciplined force. He had
entered into my residence alongwith loaded revolver and not only
created nuisance but also put my life as well as life of CT/GD Bara in
danger. The application which is being shown was initially submitted by
Mr.Amitabh Singh to get his private car, mobile phone and licensed
revolver released. But the correction was made by me on the back side
of the application with pencil to bring out the facts on record.”
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 15 of 17
24. The jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review of the finding of
Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority in exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been considered
by the Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 625 Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
A.K.Chopra observing as under :
“The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in
departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of
facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the
appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate
the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact
finding authorities. Once findings of facts, based on appreciation of
evidence recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally
interfere with those factual findings unless it finds the recorded findings
were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly
perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the
evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since,
the High Court does not sit as appellate authority, over the factual
findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the
power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speak to
substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of delinquent, for
that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of
penalty or punishment is considered, unless the punishment or penalty
imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is
either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High
Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some
other punishment or penalty.”
25. When the case of the petitioner is examined in the light of above settled
legal position governing the scope of judicial review, the inescapable
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 16 of 17
conclusion is that the dismissal of the petitioner was based on consideration of
material in right perspective and can by no stretch of imagination be termed as
perverse.
26. The writ petition is dismissed.
27. No costs.
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
st
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 17 of 17
Judgment Reserved on: January 20, 2015
% Judgment Delivered on: February 11,2015
+ W.P.(C) 6549/2013
AMITABH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Rekha Palli, Ms.Punam Singh &
Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. The petitioner assails the order dated August 19, 2013 whereby he has
been dismissed from service. He prays to be reinstated in service with
consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts giving backdrop of the petitioner being dismissed from
service are that while working as a Deputy Commandant in the Central
Reserved Police Force (CRPF), in May, 2007 the petitioner was nominated as a
Member of a Recruitment Board for appointing ASI (Stenographer) and
HC(Min.) at the Group Centre of CRPF in Muzaffarpur. Dr.Bhavna Kumari in
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 1 of 17
the medical cadre of CRPF was a Member Medical in the Board. The
petitioner claims that on May 08/09, 2007 he caught Dr.Bhavna Kumari
copying on a loose sheet a passage on which the candidates would be subjected
to the typing test. It appears that rather than bring the incident to the notice of
the superior officers, cautioning Dr.Bhavna Kumari not to indulge in illegal
practice, the petitioner destroyed the sheet of paper on which he claims he saw
Dr.Bhavna Kumari copying the passage. On May 12, 2007 a candidate was
caught with a pre-typed paper of the passage in question. On May 19, 2007 the
petitioner detected a case of impersonation during the recruitment process. FIR
No.5/2007 and FIR No.6/2007 were registered. The investigation was taken
over by CBI because of the wide ramification of the scam. Investigation
revealed involvement of many officers.
3. The petitioner received summons to depose as a witness in FIR
No.6/2007, for which he was granted three days’ casual leave from September
15, 2009 to September 17, 2009, with permission to avail restricted holiday on
September 18, 2009. The parents and the family of the petitioner were residing
in Muzaffarpur, and as per the petitioner being conscious of the recruitment
mafia operating in the area and that he would not be provided with any
protection or vehicle, he claimed to have attended the Court of the CJM,
Muzaffarpur armed with a personal licensed revolver and travelled in a Maruti
Alto vehicle owned by his younger brother Abhik Singh. During Court
proceedings, on September 14, 2009, Dr.Bhavna Kumari who was examined as
a prosecution witness turned hostile and did not identify the accused. On that
day, at about 14:00 hrs, Dr.Bhavna Kumari received a call on her mobile from
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 2 of 17
her husband who extended invitation to the petitioner for a get-together at the
Station Officers Mess (SOM). While returning from the Court, Dr.Bhavna
Kumari and one Mr.M.G.Nair accompanied the petitioner in his car. The
petitioner claims to have dropped Dr.Bhavna Kumari at her official residence at
Jhaphan Camp and alongwith Mr.M.G.Nair he went to the Stations Officers
Mess where they remained in the lounge for about two hours.
4. At a get-together in the evening of the same day, Dr.S.K.Rai, husband of
Dr.Bhavna Kumari joined them and all had a peg or two of liquor at the SOM.
Dr.S.K.Rai accompanied by his wife Dr.Bhavna Kumari left the get-together at
about 19:30 hours. The petitioner and Dr.S.K.Rai spoke at around 20:39 hours,
using their respective mobile phones having number 9968885333 and
9955676272. The petitioner claims that after about 15 minutes Dr.Bhavna
Kumari contacted him on his mobile phone and insisted that he should visit
their residence, but the petitioner refused. At about 21:35 hours, the petitioner
received a call from the DIG of the Group Centre who asked the petitioner to
leave the SOM immediately. One Constable Driver Manoj Kumar also
communicated this direction of the DIG to the petitioner. As the petitioner was
leaving the SOM, he claims that his car did not start. At that point of time, he
was called by someone by giving a signal through his finger. The petitioner
went towards that person who introduced himself as S.P.Pokhriyal, DIG of the
Group Centre. As per the petitioner the DIG misbehaved with him and directed
him to go home in a minibus. The petitioner requested that a mechanic should
be arranged to rectify the defect in his car. But DIG S.P.Pokhriyal continued to
misbehave with him, which was witnessed by many officers. At that time
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 3 of 17
Assistant Commandant K.P.S.Elango arrived and with the help of Constable
Driver Manoj Kumar got the car to start. As per the petitioner he was deprived
of his licensed revolver forcibly as also his mobile phone and was locked in a
room in the SOM. As per the petitioner, the next day i.e. September 15, 2009,
he was called to the office of the DIG and in presence of the Commandant he
was abused and pressurized to either withdraw his complaints regarding
recruitment under threat of being booked for creating nuisance at the residence
of the DIG using a loaded revolver. As per the petitioner he was informed of a
complaint being made against him by Dr.Bhavna Kumari and was coerced by
the DIG to right a written note of apology. As per the petitioner whereas his
mobile phone was returned but the revolver was kept in custody by the DIG.
5. The family members of the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of
the CJM concerning his alleged illegal confinement and even the petitioner
filed a written complaint with PS Ahiya Pur and returned to Delhi on
September 20, 2009.
6. On September 22, 2009 the petitioner was served with a suspension
order dated September 16, 2009. The presidential memorandum dated October
30, 2009 alleging following four Articles of Charge of misconduct against the
petitioner was served upon him on November 07, 2009.
Article-1
“That Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy.Commandant of 103 RAF while on attachment
and functioning as Dy.Commandant in Central Police Canteen, New Delhi was
sent on Govt. duty to Muzaffarpur (Bihar) on 10/09/09 to attend a Court case,
committed an act of serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009 at about 2055
hrs, in a drunken state he misbehaved with Dr.(Mrs.) Bhawna Kumari, SMO,
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 4 of 17
GC Muzaffarpur on her mobile using obscene language. Thus, the said officer
failed to main absolute devotion to duty being an Officer and acted in a
manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the
provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
Article-2
That during the aforesaid period, Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy.Commandant of
103. RAF while on attachment, functioning as Dy.Commandant in Central
Police Canteen, New Delhi and sent on Govt. duty to Muzaffarpur(Bihar)
committed an act of serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009 at about 2245
hrs to 2250 hrs, after consuming liquor and in an inebriated state, he entered
the residential premises of DIG Muzaffarpur in a highly agitated manner by
pointing a loaded revolver (No.32 17-3.25 bore) at No.940110464 CT/GD
George Bara, security-aide of DIG and took him as hostage and compelled
him to call the DIG, GC, Muzaffarpur using abusive language. Thus, the said
officer failed to maintain absolute devotion of duty being a responsible officer
and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby
violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964.
Article-3
That during the aforesaid period Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy. Commandant of
103 RAF while functioning as Dy. Commandant on attachment in Central
Police Canteen, New Delhi while on Govt. duty to Muzaffarpur (Bihar) on
14/09/2009 committed an act of serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009
after 2245 hrs, he without any provocation and in an inebriated state, holding
private revolver in his hand, used abusive language and threatened the DIG,
GC, Muzaffarpur of dire consequences and thereby forced DIG to come out of
his residence in the thick of night and insulted him. Thus, the said officer failed
to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a
Government servant and there by violated the provisions contained in Rule
3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 5 of 17
Article-4
That during the aforesaid period, Shree Amitabh Singh, Dy. Commandant
of 103 RAF while functioning as Dy. Commandant on attachment with Central
Police Canteen and while on Govt. duty at Muzaffarpur committed an act of
serious misconduct, in that, on 14/09/2009, after 2245 hrs, compelled Shree
S.P.Pokhriyal, DIG, GC, Muzaffarpur to come out from his residence at GC
Muzaffarpur using abusive language and made false and ill conceived
allegations against Shree S.P. Pokhriyal, DIG, GC, Muzaffarpur without any
basis that his car No. BR-06-R-0863 was damaged while he was consuming
liquor in the GO’s mess. Thus, the said officer failed to maintain absolute
devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant
and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
7. The petitioner denied the charges and hence an inquiry officer was
appointed to record evidence and submit a report. The prosecution examined
14 witnesses and the petitioner 6 in defence. The inquiry officer submitted the
inquiry report dated July 10, 2012 opining that no charge had been proved
against the petitioner.
8. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the report giving tentative
reasons in a note of disagreement, copy whereof was sent to the petitioner for
his response.
9. The petitioner submitted a detailed point-wise response dated January
08, 2013 to the disciplinary authority which examined the response of the
petitioner in the light of evidence produced during inquiry proceedings and on
forming an opinion that the petitioner had not been able to bring any material
evidence to refute the charges levelled against him or put forth any new fact,
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 6 of 17
tentatively decided to impose suitable penalty in consultation with UPSC on
quantum of penalty to be imposed.
10. On receiving the advice of UPSC vide Letter No.F.3/161/2013-SI dated
July 10, 2013 and considering the evidence adduced against the petitioner
during inquiry proceedings, vide impugned order dated August 19, 2013 passed
in the name of President of India penalty of dismissal from service was
imposed on the petitioner.
11. Since the punishment awarded to the petitioner was by President of India
and as per Rule 22(1) of CCS Rules, no appeal lies, hence this writ petition.
12. Written submissions have been filed by learned counsel for the parties.
Record of disciplinary proceedings has also been relied upon by the
respondents, which we have perused.
13. At the outset, we may mention that in the writ petition, the petitioner has
taken the plea (Ground No.U) that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
as he had not been furnished with the copy of UPSC advice before passing the
order of dismissal. In the written submissions filed by the petitioner on January
21, 2015 and January 29, 2015, the petitioner has not pressed this ground
giving to an impression that the petitioner is not desirous of disposing of this
writ petition on technical grounds by remanding the matter to be reconsidered
by the competent authority and expect a verdict from this Court touching the
merits of his claim.
14. We are conscious of the legal position laid down by Supreme Court in
AIR 2014 SC 2541 Union of India & Ors. v. R.P.Singh. Had this point been
pressed by the petitioner the matter would have required remanding the same to
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 7 of 17
the concerned authorities to provide an opportunity to the charged officer to
submit representation if he so desired and on consideration of representation, if
any, given by the charged officer to pass necessary orders.
15. Thus we have undertaken the mammoth task of perusing the voluminous
record of disciplinary proceedings.
16. Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner while
claiming it to be a dismissal passed on no evidence, raised following issues:-
(i) Petitioner who was complainant in two FIRs No.5/2007 and 6/2007 did
not accede to the request of Dr.Bhavna Kumari not to pursue his complaints
hence charges were fabricated against him at the instance of Dr.Bhavna Kumari
to divert attention from the ongoing cases (FIR No.5/2007 and FIR No.6/2007).
(ii) The alleged eye witness Ct.George Bara PW-9 was not even present at
the site or on duty and other eye witness Ct.Deen Dayal Singh PW-10 bore
grudge against the petitioner for his misconduct in the year 2008 with the wife
of the petitioner.
(iii) DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 coerced the petitioner to write an apology letter
(DEx-II/PEx-VIII) which also carries correction with pencil by DIG himself.
(iv) The get-together at SOM was organized by S.K.Rai husband of
Dr.Bhavna Kumari and as per PW-6, 7 and 8 who were in the get-together, the
petitioner was in his senses.
(v) The petitioner was called by DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 to his residence.
(vi) When the petitioner was harassed, he called up the emergency number of
CRD, CRPF Directorate from his mobile is established from the CDR (page
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 8 of 17
No.405) of the petitioner showing outgoing call of 147 seconds to CRD and
incoming calls of 435 seconds from CRD to his mobile.
(vii) Unusual conduct of K.P.S.Elango, Assistant Commandant PW-2 of not
disclosing the fact of the petitioner being locked and about the seizure memo
being prepared as well his (PW-2) entering the DIG’s house without informing
DC (Administration) or taking armed Sentry on coming to know about the
petitioner being present there with fire arm.
(viii) The Daily Report given by DC (Administration) does not refer to any
such instance on the night of September 14, 2009 nor any entry was made in
GD Register about any such instance.
(ix) The order by Commissioner, Tirbut Division, Muzaffarpur observing
that about the charge of misuse of weapon by the petitioner was concocted.
(x) Submissions of Presenting Officer that three out of four charges were not
proved against the petitioner and reasons by the inquiry officer for arriving at
the conclusion that the charges were not proved.
(xi) Disagreement note dated November 30, 2012 was motivated to somehow
punish the petitioner and the reasons given in the disagreement note by
disciplinary authority with respect to the report of inquiry officer were without
any basis. Dr.Bhavna Kumari and DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 being resident of
the same Complex, the DIG was swayed by the first complaint made by
Dr.Bhavna Kumari. The DIG not only illegally confined the petitioner but also
made him to confess nuisance by him at the residence of DIG by making him to
write an application for return of his mobile and car keys.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 9 of 17
17. Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted
that the Disciplinary Authority was within its power to record a disagreement
note and thereafter call upon the charged officer to submit representation, if
any. The petitioner did submit the representation and after taking into account
the material on record against the petitioner and the plea taken in the
representation and in consultation with UPSC the penalty of dismissal has been
imposed. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since there is
neither any violation of rules nor principles of natural justice and in view of the
serious misconduct proved against the petitioner, even the punishment awarded
to him also cannot be termed as not commensurating with the gravity of
offence, hence no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its
power of judicial review.
18. The rival contentions shall be considered in the light of legal position on
the power of Disciplinary Authority after the inquiry report has been submitted,
the standard of proof required in the disciplinary proceedings and the scope of
jurisdiction of the High court for judicial review on the findings of Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority.
19. It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the
finding of the inquiry officer provided that on the basis of material on record,
reasons for disagreement with the finding of the inquiry officer are recorded.
The findings of inquiry officer are his opinion on the material which has no
binding effect on the Disciplinary Authority. As a decision making authority,
the Disciplinary Authority can come to its own conclusion on the basis of
material available as well taking note of the opinion expressed by the inquiry
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 10 of 17
officer. The Disciplinary Authority need not contest the conclusion of the
inquiry officer for each charges. It was so held in AIR 2000 SC 22 The High
Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Sashikant S.Patil & Anr. in para 19 and 21 as
under :
“19. The reasoning of the High Court that when the Disciplinary
Committee differed from the finding of the Inquiry Officer it is
imperative to discuss the materials in detail and contest the
conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, is quite unsound and contrary to the
established principles in administrative law. The Disciplinary
Committee was neither an appellate nor a revisional body over the
Inquiry Officer's report. It must be borne in mind that the inquiry is
primarily intended to afford the delinquent officer a reasonable
opportunity to meet the charges made against him and also to afford
the punishing authority with the materials collected in some inquiry as
well as the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer thereon. The
findings of the Inquiry Officer are only his opinion on the materials,
but such findings are not binding on the Disciplinary Authority as the
decision making authority is the punishing authority and, therefore,
that authority can come to its own conclusion, of course bearing in
mind the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer. But it is not
necessary that the Disciplinary Authority should "discuss materials in
detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer". Otherwise
the position of the Disciplinary Authority would get relegated to a
subordinate level.
21. Thus the Division Bench of the High Court has not approached
the question from the correct angle which is evident when the Bench
said that it is imperative for the Disciplinary Committee to discuss
materials in detail and contest conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The
interference so made by the Division Bench with a well considered
order passed by the High Court on the administrative side was by
overstepping its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 11 of 17
20. As the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner culminated into his
dismissal, in order to satisfy ourselves, we have considered the statement of the
prosecution witnesses as well defence witnesses recorded by the inquiry officer
as well the documents exhibited by the parties during inquiry proceedings. We
have also considered the inquiry report as well the note of disagreement given
by the Disciplinary Authority and the advice received from UPSC. We find
that the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority in the disagreement
note are based on evidence available in the disciplinary inquiry against the
petitioner. Though not necessary we note hereunder certain material facts
which were established during inquiry and not controverted by the petitioner in
his statement:
(i) The petitioner had gone to the Court of CJM, Muzzafarpur armed with a
weapon in a private vehicle owned by his brother and during return journey
Dr.Bhavna Kumari accompanied him and dropped by him at her residence.
(ii) There was a get-together at SOM on the evening of September 14, 2009
where petitioner as well other participants consumed liquor and Dr.S.K.Rai,
husband of Dr.Bhavna Kumari was also participating till he left at about 7.30
pm to join some other commitment.
(iii) The petitioner had called from his mobile to the mobile of Dr.S.K.Rai
and had also talked to Dr.Bhavna Kumari.
(iv) While in SOM the petitioner received a message from DIG S.P.Pokhriyal
PW-1 at 2132 hours to leave the SOM in view of the complaint of misbehavior
made by Dr.Bhavna Kumari against the petitioner.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 12 of 17
(v) There was an incident at the residence of DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 on
the night of September 14, 2009. When hot words exchange was going on
between the petitioner and DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1, K.P.S.Elango PW-2
intervened, the petitioner was armed at that time and had consumed liquor at
the SOM.
(vi) The petitioner was removed from there by K.P.S.Elango PW-2. The
vehicle was driven by K.P.S.Elango PW-2 and he had also taken away the
weapon, mobile and car keys of the petitioner and kept the petition in a room in
SOM.
(vii) On the next day i.e. on September 15, 2009 the petitioner was taken to
the office of DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 where Commandant was also present.
The petitioner had given a written application referring to the unpleasant
incident at the residence of DIG S.P.Pokhriyal on the previous night with
request to return his mobile, car and weapon.
(viii) While car keys and mobile were ordered to be returned, the weapon was
not returned for reasons of safety.
(ix) On September 15, 2009 itself the inquiry was ordered into the incident
and all concerned were asked not to leave the station/camp without the
permission of DIG.
(x) DIG S.P.Pokhriyal PW-1 was not even known to the petitioner prior to
that date and whatever communication was made by him asking the petitioner
to leave the SOM was by calling on his mobile and subsequently when the
petitioner came out of SOM and his car did not start at the residence of DIG
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 13 of 17
S.P.Pokhriyal which was a few meters away from SOM separate by hedge
only.
(xi) K.P.S.Elango PW-2 happened to be present there to clear the mess
charges as he alongwith his unit was set to leave early in the morning on
September 15, 2009. He happened to notice the incident between two senior
officers i.e. DIG S.P.Pokhriyal and Deputy Commandant Amitabh Singh i.e.
the petitioner and tried to defuse the situation.
21. We may record here that the motive for false implication being attributed
to Dr.Bhavna Kumari and DIG S.P.Pokhriyal to pressurize the petitioner to
withdraw the two cases being FIR No.5/2007 and FIR No.6/2007 or he being
falsely implicated at the instance of Dr.Bhavna Kumari whom he caught red
handed while copying a passage meant for typing test, is not established. This
is for three reasons :
(i) Both the FIRs being State cases and status of Dr.Bhavna Kumari as well
as of the petitioner being that of prosecution witnesses only, the petitioner had
no power to withdraw the above State cases.
(ii) When the petitioner did not make complaint against Dr.Bhavna Kumari
and destroyed the passage copied by her, this gesture of the petitioner rather
saved the profession career of Dr.Bhavna Kumari. So she had hardly any
reason to nurture any grudge against the petitioner.
(iii) Travelling alongwith Dr.Bhavna Kumari, dropping her at her residence
and taking liquor with her husband at the get-together at SOM, invitation by
Dr.Bhavna Kumari to visit her residence are indicating cordial relations
between them.
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 14 of 17
22. No doubt, from the call details record of the mobile of the petitioner the
only inference can be about some talk between the petitioner and Dr.S.K.Rai or
Dr.Bhavna Kumari contents of which are neither quoted by Dr.Bhavna Kumari
or her husband nor by the petitioner. But the fact that Dr.Bhavna Kumari
called DIG S.P.Pokhriyal through intercom (they were residing in the same
campus) and only thereafter the petitioner was asked to leave the SOM taking
offence of his conduct towards Dr.Bhavna Kumari stand established.
23. A plea has been taken by the petitioner that he was coerced to write the
letter dated September 15, 2009 which as per him is confirmed by two lines
scribbled by DIG on the back of DEx-II. This letter was written by the
petitioner on September 15, 2009 and on the same day an order was passed to
return the keys of the car and mobile phone but revolver to be kept in Kote for
safety reasons till inquiry was completed. The petitioner was permitted to leave
SOM on September 17, 2009, thereafter the petitioner never informed his
Superior Authorities about he being coerced to write this “confession” by DIG
S.P.Pokhriyal. DIG S.P.Pokhriyal when appeared as PW-1, the question No.23
put to him in this regard and answer given by him reads as under:
“Q.23 : Kindly see this application (showing an application to PW-1)
and tell whether two phrases written with pencil on the back side of this
application have been written by you or by some other person?
Ans : Mr.Amitabh Singh is an officer of a disciplined force. He had
entered into my residence alongwith loaded revolver and not only
created nuisance but also put my life as well as life of CT/GD Bara in
danger. The application which is being shown was initially submitted by
Mr.Amitabh Singh to get his private car, mobile phone and licensed
revolver released. But the correction was made by me on the back side
of the application with pencil to bring out the facts on record.”
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 15 of 17
24. The jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review of the finding of
Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority in exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been considered
by the Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 625 Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
A.K.Chopra observing as under :
“The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in
departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of
facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the
appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate
the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact
finding authorities. Once findings of facts, based on appreciation of
evidence recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally
interfere with those factual findings unless it finds the recorded findings
were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly
perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the
evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since,
the High Court does not sit as appellate authority, over the factual
findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the
power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speak to
substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of delinquent, for
that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of
penalty or punishment is considered, unless the punishment or penalty
imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is
either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High
Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some
other punishment or penalty.”
25. When the case of the petitioner is examined in the light of above settled
legal position governing the scope of judicial review, the inescapable
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 16 of 17
conclusion is that the dismissal of the petitioner was based on consideration of
material in right perspective and can by no stretch of imagination be termed as
perverse.
26. The writ petition is dismissed.
27. No costs.
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
st
WP(C) 6549/2013 Page 17 of 17