HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM : Hon'bleShri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2007 NBli^ Hori Lal Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ORDER For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HQN'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 3 •^JZ- . Sd/- Chief Justice Postfor0rder:/3/12/2010 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ,^^t"^^- ^s";--c^ l-....-1" i '^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2007 ^ ^ APPELLANT Petitioner Hori Lal Sahu, aged about 45 years S/o Shri K. Sahu, resident of near Ramayan Chowk, Village Chandidih Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS 1 Versus The State Through the Department, Chhatisgarh Raipur (C.G.) of Chhattisgarh Secretary, forest Government of D.K.S. Building 2. Chief Conservator of Forest Chhattisgarh, Raipur District Raipur (C.G) 3. Conservator of Fprest, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G) 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ Appeal aaainst the order dated 23.08.06 passed bv the Sinale Judae in W.P. (S) No. 1120/20051 Appearance: Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents. ,^" .\Q WritADpealNo. 42/2007 ORDER (/r-.12.2010) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 23rd of August, 2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1120/2005 by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellant was a driver in Forest Department. He was suspended by an order dated 08.07.1988 in contemplation of a departmental inquiry for the charges of misusing the Government vehicle (Jeep No. CPZ 4083) and for causing damage to the said vehicle by accident. A departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant for the above charges. The inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the appellant misused the Government vehicte, as he took it to different places for his personal use without any permission of the concerned authority and while he was visiting those places, vehicle met with an accident, which caused damage to the Government. The disciplinary authority, therefore, imposed the punishment to the appellant by passing an order of removal from service on 06.05.1989. The appellant preferred statutory appeal before the Appellate authority (Conservator Forest) but the appeal was dismissed by the said authority on 20.09.1989. The appellant, thereafter, preferred a Revision Petition before the Chief Conservator of Forest. The Revision Petition was also dismissed on 10.04.1992. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders passed by the concerned authorities. The learned Single WritApDealNo. 42/2007 /' Judge, on perusal of the pleadings and documents came to the conclusion that the finding of the Inquiry Officer was based on sufficient evidence and there is no irregularity, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the inquiry report. The learned Single Judge further held that the scope of Judicial Review is limited to deficiency in decision making process, not the decision. In the present case, there is no irrationality, illegality or procedural irregularity, which requires interference in the finding ofthe inquiry Officer and the decision ofthe disciplinary authority for imposing of punishment of removal from service. The Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed Review Petition No. 19/2006. The Review petition was also dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on 31.10.2006. (3) Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that looking to the allegations held proved against the appellant, the punishment imposed is too harsh, therefore, the same may be reduced and some smaller punishment may be awarded to the appellant. Preferably, he may be retained in service with some other punishment. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal. r-- WritADpealNo. 42/2007 (6) In Reaional Manaaer & Disciplinarv Authoritv, State Bank of India. Hvderabad and Another Vs S. Mohammed Gaffar, (2002) 7 SCC 168 the Supreme Court held thatit is a settled position that in departmental proceedings, insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or Appellate Authority is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the Court, it should not normally interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion and either impose some other punishment or penalty or direct the authority to impose a particular nature or category of punishment of its choice. p-»^» (7) In Reaional Manaaer. U.P. SRTC, Etawah and Others Vs Hotilal and Others. (2003) 3 SCC 605, it was held that the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record the reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges and the scope of interference is very limited and restricted to the exceptional cases. Not only the amount involved, but the mental set-up, the type of duty and similar relevant circumstances have to keep into consideration to decide the proportionality of the punishment. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, the matter should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently. WritADpealNo. 42/2007 ^ IIB»KIN^'1 (8) In case of hand, the appellant/petitioner was a vehicle driver in Forest Department, Bilaspur. The vehicle was in charge of the local authority at Bilaspur. For some urgent work, the vehicle was requisitioned by the local authority of Kota. The Kota Authority took the possession of the vehicle and after completion of his work directed the appellant to take back the vehicle to the custody of Bilaspur Authority, but the appellant took this vehicle to other villages to the house of his relatives and when he was returning, the vehicle met with an accident and huge loss was caused to the vehicle. It is on this account, the departmental inquiry was conducted and the two fact finding Authorities found that the charges framed against the appellant were proved. They also found that the defence taken by the appellant was false. Even the revision filed by the appellant before the Revisional Authority against the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. (9) On the proved facts and circumstance of the case it was established that the appellant disobeyed the orders of his concerned authority and without any permission from the competent authority, he took the vehicle to different places and ultimately when the vehicle met with the accident on a route other than the route required to be taken, the matter was disclosed. Certainly, the driver of the Government jeep holds the post of trust. He is required to --^-_ Writ Appeal No. 42/2007 ^ drive the vehicle on the instructions of the authority concerns, in whose custody the vehicle remains. Taking the vehicle for personal use without the permission and then causing accident in such a manner, therefore, was an illegal act, for which the appellant was removed from the service. ^^, (10) In the fact and circumstances of the case, it does not appear that the punishment imposed against the appellant was shockingly disproportionate and it requires interference by this Court in intra- court appeal. (11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (12) No orders as to cost. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge rahul