CWP No.8080 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8080 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.05.2010 Subhash Chand ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) While serving as Constable and on duty in Police Station Jagadhari on 08-09.12.2004, the petitioner was entrusted with a truck impounded by the Traffic Incharge. The truck as parked at the police station wherefrom it was stolen. It is alleged that the key of the truck was with Mohrer of the police station. On the basis of the alleged dereliction of the duty, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. After show cause notice to the petitioner, Superintendent of Police, imposed penalty of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect, vide his order dated CWP No.8080 of 2010 -2- 30.03.2005 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which came to be dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala, vide his orders (Annexure P-3). An appeal filed before Inspector General of Police was partially allowed and punishment of the stoppage of 5 increments was reduced to that of stoppage of 3 increments with permanent effect. A revision filed by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Haryana also dismissed, vide order dated 16.03.2006. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehementally argued that the Enquiry Officer has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and thus, the findings recorded by him are liable to be set aside and consequently, the order of dismissal. What is sought to be impressed upon this Court is to re- appreciate the evidence lead during the enquiry to formulate a fresh opinion. Except this, no other ground has been urged to challenge the orders passed by the respondents regading imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review in excercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect to the domestic enquiries is very limited. It is settled law that this Court cannot sit as a a Court of appeal to reappraise and re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at conclusion of its own and to substitute the one arrived at by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority. Even if, an another view is possible no interference under judicial review is permissive. Mr. Mamli has tried to read the evidence as it was a criminal trial and the allegations were to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. In a domestic enquiry, the opinion of the Enquiry Officer if possible on the basis of the evidence is to be respected. Of course, if there is perversity and violation of any statutory provisions or of principles of natural justice interference in power of judicial review is called for. Mr. Mamli has not CWP No.8080 of 2010 -3- pointed out any violation of statutory provisions or of principles of natural justice. He has attempted to pesuade this Court to reappraise the evidence, which is impermissible in law. No merit, the writ petition is dismissed. May 5, 2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE