jé @ WW/V/ UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER'. 2?}gf’ @003 single Bench K IN’i‘HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURLCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION NO. w Yadavram Jangde,s / o Late Pyarelal Jangade, aged about 32 years, r/o village Tsngana Varpara, P.S. Gurur, District Durg, At present resident of Community Church Bhilai, Sector 6 Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of chhattisgarh through Department of Home , D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Disrict Rajpur (Chhattisgarh) Sperintendent of Police , Bastar, District Bastar, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) \wv’ RESPONDENrs‘i 1. Director General of Police, Bastar Range , Jagdalpur , District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) D t, XI-HC-ZZ titioner were that on 1934998 he was found in an inebriated condition an égain' on 01.5.1998 when he was on sentry duty in the night between 9 t 12 pm. he was found sleeping in such a condition. After completion of the e quiry the Superintendent of Police found the petitioner guilty for the miscon tor General of Police, Bastar range also ’ affirmed thé order passed by the SP tents, Shri 'Soni learned counsel for the fact that in the departmental enquiry the was coming out from the mouth of the onstitution of lndia, this Court cannot sites judicial review on the administrative action is based on no evidence or disciplinary authority has acted contrary to the law and rules or principle of natural justice is petitloner and in appeal the Inspec During the course of argun » petitioner tried to impress upon the Doctor has simply said that-smeil petitioner. Under Article 226 of the C an appellate Court and the power ol ls to the extent that if the finding Shri NL Soni,‘ cgunsei for the petitioner. - Shri Praveen Des, Penei Lawy‘rforthe State. - Heard. By this writ petition fiied un india petitioner has chaiienged the o Superintendent of Poiice, Jagdalp terminated after holding the enquiry. The charges against the p, ér Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of er (Annexure P-3) passed by the Dietrict r, by which petitioner’s services were ct and he terminated the service‘of the , Jagdalpurr, l W m WEWLJVNOWV 200} ‘ Wax mam W Wm§% . , ’ m ma“ “f“ ~ Wm wW . a: am m “ 05.09.2003 XI-HC-22 mm£rwm mmw vioiated then the enquiry proceedings can be quashed. All these points have no’t been raised in the matter. Therefore thereis no substance in the arguments of Ieam’ed qounsei for the petitioner. The second argument E advanced by Mr.Soni is that the charg of misconduct against the. petitioner i Was very minor and the petitioner was w rking as Police Constabie since 1992 and he cgmpieted atmost 6 years ojse ice tiil the alleged misconduct and on both the counts he was simply found in drunken condition‘an'd in addition, in one incident he was found sleeping whil he was on duty. Therefore, looking to the nature of the alleged misconduct th quantum of punishment is harsh and disproportionate to the nature of miscon uct. Again under the writ jurisdiction this Court cannot substitute its finding i the matter of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and the appelia e authority which is within their domain and they have to take decision looking o the facts and circumstances of each i and every case. The writ jurisdiction o this Court is extended only when the _ punishment awarded is such which is s ocking the conscience of the Court, in i ' the circumstances without going furthe in detail, it is appropriateto leave the quantum of punishment to the appellate authority. / Counsel for the petitioner submi s that the petitioner has already served I, 6 years and he has 3 chiidren and old parents and he will not be able toféed them without employment and at the a e of 321 years he will not be able to get any other job. in the circumstances t petitioner is- allowed to make a mercy petition and a detailed representationt the inspector General or Poiice‘ Basta‘r/r/\ \ \ i \ /7” , m , > r //// w\ r \ XI—HCIZ2 wwwiiwm - $Wm wimin a period of 30 days and on s’uc? Genera! of Poiice, Jagdalpur who is petition/representation of the petitione of the case and to take appropriéte doc With the direction/observation AcCordingly, I.A.8273l2003 also stanf QC as per rules. petition being filed, it is for the Inspector the appellate authority to consider that r looking to the facts and circumstances lSlOl’l. aforesaid, this petition is disposed of. is disposed of. l l . i Sdl- l L.C.BHADOO