IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10679 of 2010. Date of Decision : May 28, 2010. Santosh Kumar ...... Petitioner . Versus. Union of India and others. ..... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.. The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Order dated 30.05.2009, vide which the representation preferred by the petitioner against the adverse remarks/entry in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2008-2009, stands rejected as also for quashing of the Order dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure-P-8), imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years without any cumulative effect and Order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure-P-10), rejecting the Appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the order of imposition of penalty. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the work and conduct of the petitioner had always been appreciated during the period in question, i.e., 2008-2009. As a matter of fact, the petitioner during this period passed the course of promotion for the post of A.S.I. (Fire) from the post of Head Constable (Fire/DCPO) (Annexure-P-11). He contends that the petitioner was awarded with honour in Promotion Cadre Course and his name was shown at Sr. No. 115 of the list, but still despite his fairing well in the said C.W.P. No. 10679 of 2010. -2- course, adverse remarks have been recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2008-2009. His further contention is that the Order of Punishment dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure-P-8) and Order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure-P-10), dismissing the Appeal preferred by the petitioner, deserve to be set aside as the same are based on no evidence against the petitioner. He on this basis contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned Orders be set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure-P- 8) would show that a Regular Departmental Inquiry was held against the petitioner. On consideration of the inquiry report and the evidence, the Punishing Authority on due consideration of the same and appreciating all the facts and details, had passed the said Order of Punishment against the petitioner, which is based on evidence on record. A lenient view of punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years without any cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. The Appellate Authority had taken into consideration all the grounds raised by the petitioner in its impugned Order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure-P-10). All contentions raised by the petitioner have been duly considered by the Appellate Authority and on re-appreciation of the evidence brought on record during the inquiry proceedings, the Appellate Authority had passed a detailed and well reasoned Order, rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner. The adverse Annual Confidential Report remarks/entry for the year 2008-2009 has been rightly recorded against the petitioner, which does not call for any interference by this Court. C.W.P. No. 10679 of 2010. -3- Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the powers of the High Court of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings in the case of Rai Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Versus Bhola Nath Singh and others, J.T. 1997 (3) S.C. 717, in para 6 held as follows :- “1 to 5 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. Under these circumstances, the question arises: whether the High Court would be correct in law to appreciate the evidence and the manner in which the evidence as examined and to record a finding in that behalf? The judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The High Court, in the proceedings under Article 226 does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. In this case, no such errors were pointed out nor any finding in that behalf was recorded by the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court examined the evidence as if it is a Court of first appeal and reversed the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by disciplinary authority. Under these circumstances, the question of examining the evidence, as was done by the High Court, as a first appellate court, is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. 7. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which has been taken into consideration by the Punishing Authority and thereafter, gone into by the Appellate Authority. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited where the findings recorded by the Punishing Authority is based on no evidence or where the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged mis-conduct or where there is error of law or procedure leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. These parameters C.W.P. No. 10679 of 2010. -4- are missing in the present case. This Court does not act as an appellate authority. There is evidence brought on record during the inquiry proceedings, which has been considered by the Punishing Authority and the Appellate Authority and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is after taking a lenient view, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 28, 2010. sjks.