1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4600/2011 ( Ramkaran Singh s/o Late Shri Parsaram ..Vs.. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Ms Geeta Tiwari, Adv. i/b. Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Adv. for petitioner. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & M.N. GILANI, JJ . ORDER ( Per M.N. Gilani, J.) Date of Reserving the order : 22/09/2011. Date of Pronouncing the order : 27/09/2011. 1. On the night intervening 16/1/2009 and 17/1/2009 while the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector at Terminal No.2 of the Mumbai International Airport, Mumbai, the incident leading to the initiation of inquiry against the petitioner, occurred. The allegations against him were that he misbehaved with his superior by using abusive language amounting to insubordination and misconduct. The Memorandum asking him to show cause as to why the appropriate penalty be not imposed upon him for the alleged 2 misconduct, was issued on 9/2/2009. On 28th March 2009, the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered. The minor penalty of withholding of an increment for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect was imposed on 26/3/2009. This order was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal preferred before the respondent no.3. After considering the points in defence raised by the petitioner, the appellate authority vide order dated 29th September 2009 dismissed the appeal. This was further assailed in revision before the respondent no.2. The Revisional Authority on careful consideration of material, placed on record, came to the conclusion that the charge of insubordination and gross mis-behaviour levelled against the petitioner is well founded. It, therefore, dismissed the revision application. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the concurrent findings of three authorities by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Prima facie we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Inquiry Officer, confirmed by the appellate authority and again confirmed by the revisional authority. 3. It is well settled law that in a departmental proceedings, the High Court in writ jurisdiction should not normally 3 interfere with the finding of the fact. The question of adequacy of evidence or the quantum of punishment is outside its purview. The High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, particularly when the finding of such an authority is final under the statute. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and then confirmed by two higher authorities are dehors the material placed on record. In State of Mizoram Vs. B.D. Thakur, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 268 the Supreme Court held that : “...High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the finding of guilt arrived at by the disciplinary authority. On the basis of the findings arrived at by the enquiring officer, the Division Bench of the High Court has itself in its order stated that there were ample evidence in support of the conclusion and if the finding is supported by oral evidence the same need not and should not have been interfered with on the ground that the extent has not been examined.” 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of personal hearing. Admittedly, as per Rule 34 of the Central 4 Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 the penalty imposed upon the petitioner falls within the category of “minor penalties”. A separate procedure for imposing major penalties and minor penalties have been provided under the Rules. Rule 37, which lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties, does not mandate for giving an opportunity of personal hearing. Considering the nature of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 is also not attracted. The learned counsel relied upon following observations in an unreported decision in Balaji Digambarrao Kotgire Vs. Enquiry Authority/ Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce in Writ Petition No.2863 of 2007, decided on 7th September, 2011 by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein major penalty of removal was imposed upon the petitioner. “... The Disciplinary authority is bound to inquire into the truth of the imputations made as to misconduct of the employee. We are of the opinion that the Inquiry Authority is required to frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of allegations and statements of imputations. On the basis of the principle of ‘Audi alteram partem’ a delinquent must have a fair opportunity of hearing so as to answer the imputations/ accusations against him after knowing as to what case he has to meet. Procedural fairness would include right to an oral hearing and right of an employee to submit legal representation/ written statement if filed within reasonable time. ...” 5 5. In our considered view, the present case stands totally on different footings and therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any help from this decision. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.