1 SHISHUPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.3282/94) Dated:- 3.3.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.P.P.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Tiwari, Additional Government Counsel. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity of order Annexure P/1, dated 12.10.88, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby on charges of misconduct being proved against him, he has been removed from service,order Annexure P/3, dated 1.12.89, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been rejected by the Appellate Authority and order dated 30.8.93 whereby the review petition preferred by him has been rejected by the Governor. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned order imposing punishment of removal from service, the copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him, therefore, order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority being violative of principle of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set aside for this reason alone. The learned counsel further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order has not dealt with the submissions made by the petitioner, therefore, 2 the same suffers from vice of non application of mind. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner remained absent from duty due to his illness but, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Lastly, learned counsel contended that looking to the gravity of misconduct proved, punishment of removal from service inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed for this reason also. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Counsel urged that the petitioner never demanded the copy of the inquiry report . That apart, the petitioner has not been able to establish that on account of non supply of inquiry report , any prejudice has been caused to him. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has admitted the guilt , therefore, nothing turns on the question that inquiry report has not been supplied to him. The learned counsel submitted that the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority stands affirmed by the Appellate Authority,thus, in view of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the authorities, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court would not like to reappreciate the evidence and sit in appeal over the order passed by both the authorities , therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, 3 considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner was charge sheeted for habitual absence from duty. The charges of absence from duty were not denied by the petitioner, however, the absence was sought to be justified on the ground that he was suffering from some or other illness at all the relevant time when he was found to be absent from duty. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority goes to show that the petitioner has admitted the charges of absence from duty, therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of material on record and admission of guilt by the petitioner, cannot be faulted with. 7. In the matter of "Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan", [1991 (1) SCC 588], the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that delinquent employee is entitled to the copy of inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority takes decision on the charges levelled against him. But, in the matter of "Managing Director, ECIL vs. B.Karunakar" [JT 1996(3) SC 1], Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "since the said decision in Mohd. Ramzan's case has made the law expressly prospective in operation, the same will apply only to those orders of punishment which are passed by the Disciplinary Authority after 20.11.1990. Therefore, order of punishment passed before that date are not challengeable on the grounds that there was failure to furnish 4 the inquiry report." Admittedly, in the instant matter, order impugned imposing the punishment has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 12.10.88. That apart, the petitioner who has admitted the charge, has not been able to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of non supply of copy of the inquiry report. In this view of the matter, contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that on account of non supply of report, orders impugned stand vitiated, is devoid of any merit. 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was holding the post of Constable in the Police Department and therefore, the various charges of misdemeanor found to be proved against the petitioner, the penalty of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary . 9. In the matter of disciplinary action against an employee, the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. After perusal of the record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer and the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the 5 Constitution of India. I do not find any error in orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority as well. 10. Accordingly,the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.