IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6693 of 2009 Ram Japo Yadav . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. For the State:- Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, Adv. --------------- 3. 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Head Clerk was proceeded with departmentally on five charges. Subsequently one supplementary charge was also added. The enquiry report held that though he was not guilty of embezzlement a finding of dereliction in timely discharge of duties with regard to maintenance of accounts facilitating embezzlement by another was arrived at. A second show cause notice came to be issued duly replied after which an order of punishment dated 20.11.2006 was passed visiting him by one reduction of pay scale and that nothing except subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority had both noticed the defence that the petitioner had made attempts to point out the deficiency in maintenance of records and that 2 he was not getting co-operation. A criminal case was also lodged, Bhakri P.S. Case No. 44 of 2003 in which final report came to be submitted and he was not sent up for trial. It is therefore submitted that if the petitioner had pointed out the deficiency in maintenance of records despite which no steps were taken by the concerned, he did all that was possible by him and therefore negligence by him facilitating embezzlement is unfounded. Counsel for the State submitted that it was the negligence on part of the petitioner, reflective of his inefficiency of discharge of duties that facilitated embezzlement by another. The Court while considering an order of punishment passed in a departmental proceeding is primarily concerned with the decision making process rather than the decision itself. If there are serious infirmities in the decision making process causing prejudice to the delinquent or the findings arrived at suffer from perversity, irrationality or are illogical, are some of the grounds when the Court may interfere. The Court does not sit as a super appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority or the statutory appellate authority to reconsider the facts, evidence and 3 findings. Any enquiry held before the commencement of the departmental proceeding was but a part of the process of decision making, in the nature of exploration and shall not control the departmental proceedings or the finding arrived at. If it has been relied upon for imposing punishment then only it is required to be furnished during the enquiry. The limits of judicial review in context of an order passed in pursuance of a departmental proceeding has been considered in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India) at Paragraph-12 as follows:- “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of 4 fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.” The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have both concluded that the petitioner could not be saddled with embezzlement or conspiracy. He was not vigilant enough in the discharge of his duties and which facilitated the embezzlement. It shall not be the jurisdiction of the Court to sit in assessment over this finding of the enquiry officer affirmed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The finding of the authority is that he did not 5 retain sufficient administrative control over the Nazir because of which the cash book was not written for over one year facilitating the embezzlement. The petitioner has been unable to demonstrate either from his reply to the second show cause notice or the grounds taken in the memo of appeal that the proceedings at any stage suffered from any serious procedural irregularity vitiating the whole enquiry and the order of punishment. There is no allegation of any perversity in arriving at the findings. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the punishment. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)