CWP No.7464 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 27.04.2010 Rajan Mittal ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner was appointed as Additional Ahlmad. He joined his duties on 10.02.1997. While being posted at Karnal, he is stated to have tampered with dying declaration of one Seema recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Duty Magistrate in the case titled State Vs. Deepak, arising out of First Information Report No.250 dated 10.05.1998, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Butana. A preliminary enquiry was initiated in this regard and the petitioner was asked to participate in the enquiry and he appeared before the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry, a regular enquiry was ordered on 07.11.1998. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.08.1999 (Annexure P-3) and found the petitioner guilty of the charge. On consideration of the Enquiry Report, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner under Rule 7 read with Rule 4 of Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987, for Major Penalty. On considering the reply of the petitioner his service was ordered to be terminated vide order dated 31.03.2000 CWP No.7464 of 2010 2 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner preferred service appeal which also came to be dismissed by an Hon'ble Judge of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure P-7). The present petition has been filed after more than 7 years to challenge the order of Appellate Authority and more than 10 years after the termination. No plausible or a valid reason has been indicated in the writ petition to explain the inordinate delay of 7 to 10 years except that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family and lacks resources. Casual explanation rendered in paragraph 19 of the writ petition is not convincing at all. There is no valid reason to entertain this petition after a period of 10 years of termination and 7 years of dismissal of the service appeal. Otherwise also, the ground of challenge is non-appreciation of evidence by the Enquiry Officer. It is settled proposition of law that the High Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 does not act as a “Court of Appeal” over the disciplinary authority. The Court exercising power of judicial review can only examine the manner of exercise of power while taking a decision and not the decision itself. There has been no allegation of violation of statutory rules or violation of principle of natural justice. In view of the above, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition at this belated stage. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. 27.04.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO