( IN) M. PgNO. a) ’ O Petitioner : Ram Kripal shankh, acea 48 years son a? Shri Hiraram Shankha. Lower Division Clerk, Municipal ‘ouncil, Aramg, District Raipur. M.P. VS . Responéents: (1) The State of Madhya Pradeéh. through the secretary, Local Self GOVt. Department, Govt. of M. , Vallabh Bhawan. Bhopal,‘ M.P. Commissioner. Revenue Divisbn Raipilr. M.P. 3) Collector. Rapur, District Raipur, M P. (4) Municipal Csu‘ncil.‘ £rang, Distt. J Raipur. through its Chief Municipal fficer, Raipur. M. P. ooMMIS Q2; PETITICN UNDER ART$o z26/227 OF THE CCNSTITUTIm w ’ INDIA Fm APPROPRIATE WRITS OR GREERS OR DIRECI‘IGIS / y <3 @QQ _ 1"! THE HIGH CWRT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR W 1 ( i a ‘ ’ B AW? HIGH COURT OF CHHAmséARH AT BILASPUR W, P, No. 2166 of 1992 1. SB: Hon‘bh Mr. Justice Safish K. Agnlho'i‘ri. J Shri R.P. Kosaria, counsel for the petitioner. Shri . Arun Son, Depu1y Govemmenf Advocufe for 141a responden'rs No. 1, 2 and 3/5'ra1'z. None appears for the respondenf No. 4 ORDER (27* November, 2006) The foHowing order of 1he Cour? is passed by Safish K. Agniho'tri, J. 1. The pe‘m'ioner was appoiMed in ‘rhe office of 1he Mmicipal Council, ‘Arang, Dis‘rrict Rnipur as Lower Division Clerk on 15.2.1974 and thereuf‘rer, he was confirmed on the said post. '2. By order dated 5.4.1982 (Amexure P/1), the petitioner was placed under sumnsion on the ground that he hos mislead the officers and embezzled the fund by not depositm'g the some in the treasury. Pefi'l'ioner / Ram Kripal Shmkh Versus Respondenfs Sfu‘re of MMa Pmdeél, through 1h¢ Sacremry & oihers 3. The petifioner was served wi1+n a charge-duet along with fhe memorandum of charges. The pe'rifioner filed his reply +0 1he charge-sheet on 2111982. 4. The enquiry officer was appoin'red on 7.10.1982. Affzr comp Ie‘rion of enquiry, n show cause noticc was givzn on 10.8.1983 , (Annexure P/Z) as ‘ra why the pe‘ri‘rioner iwuld no1' be dismissed from service. The pe'rih'oner appeared before fhe Administrator and submi'r'ied his reply. After considering 'ihe reply of the petitioner, one more show cause notice dated 27.4.1987 (Annexure P/4) was issued; proposing following punishment, “1.Wmuma$1%aahmi3tmahm mwahmaiatumgwmswso wgi‘cftt zmmahmn‘ihawémm Mahrmatasmmsnwélm mmwmmsimmadi Imam! ammmwmahmmm maiiehi’imir The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.4.1987 (Annexur‘e PIE). 5. The Disciplinary Officer i.e. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Arang, by order dated 28.5.87 (Annexure P/6), imposed the penalty of withholding increments and directing the petitioner to deposit embezzled amount of Rs. 333:50 and ¢ sJspznsion of incrammts during the period of suspension on permanen'r basis. . Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred m appeal before the Coliecfor, Raipur, being Appeal No. 35/8/121/Year- 86-87. Th: Coilec‘tor, by order- du'red 15.3.1989 (Annexure P/7), confirm the finding recorded by fhe discipiimry officer and puniiimem imposed by the disciplinary officer hoiding That looking info the gravity of the charges, the .punid'iment imposed was not excessive. This appeal was dismissed. . The petitioner further preferred m appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur, Division Roipur. The Commissioner, by order dated 21“-August, 1990 (Annexure P/8), allowed the appeal in part, holding that only one increment during the period of suspension would be withheld and the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension. 11ne other part of the punishment was upheld. . Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 21" August, 1990 (Annexure PIS) passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, whereby the punidiment imposed on the petitioner was amended to the extent that the pay revisions which was not allowed by the disciplinary mthority and the Collector, was modified aid only one increment was ’s/ (3» Q‘J ' / wi'fhheid, but i'l' was held The? fhe p¢1'i1’ioner was no? en‘ri‘rlgd 1'0 full paymem of his salary, during the suspension period. 9. If is well sen-led principle of law 'rhuf this'Courf while exercis‘mg its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of The Consli'lufion of India has limited jurisdiction To fhe exieni of reviewing fhe case, in fhe event, 'lhere is perversity, irregularity or illegality in the process of decision, not in the decision itself. 10.The Supreme Court in the case of V. Ramam Vs. A.P. SRTC and other? after having considered the dicta laid down in the rose of B.C. Cha'Iurvedi Vs. Union of India {(1995) 6 SCC 749}, Union of India Vs. 6. Gonoyuthom {(1997) 7 SCC 463) md other cases, observed in para 11, as under:- ‘11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it‘was iilogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was diocking to the conseience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury oase‘ the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision." /"k .L _‘ 11. After hearing learned counsel for the par'ries, this is no? the rage of me pefi'rioner Thu? 'rhere was my perversity, irregularify, illegali‘ry or improprie'ry in the enquiry. The pefifioner seems fo be aggrieved by fhe order of fhe Commissioner, whereby wifhhoiding one incremen-r was confirmed and i'l' was held iha‘l' ihe pe‘l’ifioner would no'l’ be en'li‘l'led To full paymen'r during fhe su$ension period. 12. Having regard 1o fhe fads and circumstances of +he mse when there is serious allegation of embezzlement of fund, the punishment imposed by the Commissioner does not seem to be excesslve. 13. For the reasons stated-above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ’ Sdl- f f $atish K.Agnihotri5 , , Judge woos) 7 scc 33a}