WP(C) 3155/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K.SHARMA Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr . N. Borah, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated nil of December, 1999 (Annexure-6) by which he was removed from serv ice pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The order of removal from service was affirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-7 order dated 03.08.2000. The petitioner while was serving as L/NK in the Group Centre, CRPF, Guwa hati was issued with memorandum of charge sheet on 16.02.99 levelling the follow ing charges: Article-I That No. 810712867 Lance Naik B.C. Nath of Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati committe d an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11 (1) of CR PF Act, 1949, in that he demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from Shri Md. Amil Haque, selected as Constable (GD) in CRPF, and accepted Rs. 1000/- as part payment the reof on 05.01.1999. Article-II That the aforesaid No. 810712867 Lance Naik B.C. Nath of Group Centre, CRPF, Guw ahati while functioning in the aforesaid office, committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949, in that he kept such official document/papers in his possession at his residence which he w as not supposed to keep. The statement of imputation of misconduct in respect of the said Article s of charges is reflected below: Article-I That No. 810712867 L/NK B.C. Nath of Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati was functionin g in this Group Centre as L/NK from 22.09.98. He was working as assistant to rec ruitment clerk in the main office of GC CRPF Guwahati. Shri Md. Amil Haque, S/o Shri Shahaddin Sheikh, on his selection as Constable (GD), reported in this GC o n 28.12.98. While completing the formalities with regard to documentation of the said candidate, L/NK B.C. Nath apprised him that his original documents were mi ssing from his dossiers and hence there is a snag in clearing his appointment. H e further impressed upon the candidate that he will set-right the issue if he wi ll make payment of Rs. 5,000/-, otherwise his selection will stand cancelled. Th e said candidate was not having the required amount with him. However, he shelle d out Rs. 1000/- which he placed on the wash-basin of gent’s toilet in GC Office Conference Hall, on the instructions of L/NK B.C. Nath, from where the latter b ook it. He further kept pestering the above candidate, i.e. Md. Amil Haque, for payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- while the candidate was unable to pay u p, and subsequently the said candidate Md. Amil Haque reported the matter in rol l-call on 06.01.99, when BHM asked the new recruits as to whether any of them ha d any problems. Thus No. 810712867 L/NK B.C. Nath committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force u/s 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force. Article-II That the aforesaid No. 810712867 Lance Naik B.C. Nath, while functioning in the aforesaid capacity in Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, accepted bribe of Rs. 1000/ - from Md. Amil Haque, a candidate for appointment as Constable (GD) and persist ed for payment of Rs. 4,000/- more. On 06.01.99, during roll-call, BHM HC Guruda var Singh enquired from the new recruits if they had any problems, the said cand idate Md. Amil Haque came up with the grievance that L/NK B.C. Nath is insisting for payment of money in terms of bribe for completing/ setting right is documen tation. On receipt of this information, the matter was reported to Commandant of this Group Centre. Subsequently on the instructions of Commandant GC CRPF Guwa hati, a search party comprising of SI (Adm) SI M.K. Singh, HC (BHM) Gurdavar Si ngh, HC (CHM) S.N. Ghosh, HC(QMC) Ram Eqbal, Constables Rudrappa, B.K. Borah, an d Mahila Constables M. Dass & S. Dass, was detailed to conduct search of the res idence of the said L/NK B.C. Nath at Quarter No. 139 (Type-I Special) allotted t o No. 901210422 CT U.K. Pati of GC CRPF Guwahati, where the former was sharing a ccommodation with the latter. During search on 07.01.99, the party found followi ng documents/official papers from the said residence as per details given below: a) Letter No. R. II 1/98 Estt- V dated 24.11.98 addressed to Debeswar Sonawal, S /o. Tukheswar Sonawal, calling him to appear for selection test on 02.01.99. b) Letter No. R. II-1/98 Estt. V dated 24.11.98 addressed to Nirud Baruah, S/o. Late Upen Baruah calling him to appear for selection test on 02.01.99. Thus the aforesaid L/NK B.C. Nath committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as member of the Force under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 which is preju dicial to the good order and discipline of the Force. Alongwith the charge sheet apart from said statement of imputation of mi sconduct, the list of documents and witnesses were also enclosed. In response to the said charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defenc e. Being not satisfied with the defence plea, the disciplinary authority decided to proceed wit the matter and accordingly enquiry was conducted. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 06.11.99 holding th e petitioner guilty of both the charges. The petitioner was given opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the aforesaid impugned order of removal from service upheld by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant w rit petition. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentio ns raised in the writ petition. According to the respondents in the enquiry the petitioner was given full opportunity of being heard. It has been stated that si nce the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and in absence of procedural irre gularities in conducting the enquiry, the contentions raised in the writ petitio n are not tenable in law. According to the petitioner, if the evidences on record are properly app reciated, the charges against the petitioner cannot be said to have been establi shed. Reacting to the penalty of removal from service, it has been contended tha t having regard to the gravity of charges stated to have been established, same is grossly disproportionate. I have perused the entire materials on record including the departmental proceeding file. Mr. Borah, learned C.G.S.C. has drawn my attention to the stat ements of the petitioner made during the enquiry proceeding in which he clearly admitted the charges of obtaining Rs. 1000/- from the complainant as bribe. It i s true that the amount was subsequently returned to the complainant, but that by itself cannot absolve the petitioner from the charge levelled against him. Apar t from the own admission of the petitioner, the witnesses examined also unequivo cally stated about the demand of bribe by the petitioner. So far as the charge N o. 2 is concerned, it is an admitted position that two call letters were recover ed from the possession of the petitioner. It will have to be borne in mind that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force, the kind of conduct re flected in both the charges was unbecoming. It was in such a situation, the auth ority taking into account the entire evidences on record imposed the penalty of removal from service which was also upheld by the appellate authority. Needless to say that the writ court exercising the power of judicial rev iew under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal over the findings arrived at by the authorities and reappreciate the evidence on record. Apart from the statements of the witnesses relating to the charges, the petitio ner himself admitted his guilt while replying to the question No. 24 put to him about keeping an amount of Rs. 1000/- out of his free will. To another question (Question No. 26), his reply was that he had kept the money till the day on whic h he returned the same to the complainant on the face of the charge levelled aga inst him. As regards the claim of returning the money to the complainant, the pe titioner in the enquiry proceeding stated that he did not inform about the same to any one, including the superior authority. When the petitioner was asked whet her by such conduct he had committed a wrong, the petitioner admitted the same. As regards the charge No. 2, it will have to be borne in mind that the petitione r was in charge of despatching the call letters. In his defence, he had pleaded that although the call letters had been dispatched, but later on he found the sa me lying on the particular place and accordingly took the same to his quarter fo r despatching the same on the next day. Such a plea has been found to be untenab le and rightly so by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. By not sending the call letters, the petitioner deprived two probable candidates from a ppearing in the selection in question. For all the aforesaid reasons the enquiry officer submitted the report holding that both the charges against the petitioner have been established and in consid eration of the said report the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of rem oval from service. Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct, the disciplin ary authority having imposed the particular penalty, it will not be appropriate for the writ court to substitute the same by a lesser penalty. It will be beyond the ambit, scope and jurisdiction of the writ court exercising the power of jud icial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.