1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER ASI P.S.Jhala Vs. Union of India & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4516/2004 Date of Order : : 26/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Pushpendra Singh Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the respondent-Union of India. BY THE COURT: Reportable By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annexure-13 dated 24th November, 2001, Annexure-14 dated 13th February, 2002 and Annexure-15 dated 13th February, 2004 passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and revisional Authority respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as many as three charges were framed against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry. So far as third charge is concerned, it relates to the previous conduct of the petitioner for which he has already been dealt with and the punishment for both these charges have already been imposed earlier and therefore, it amounts to double jeopardy. Learned counsel further submits that on the charges framed in a departmental proceedings, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed which is too harsh. The delinquency was not serious in nature warranting imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Learned counsel submits that the order of compulsory retirement is stigmatic and therefore, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders impugned. Learned counsel representing the Union of India submits that there is no procedural error in conducting departmental enquiry and on the basis of the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, the findings of fact have been recorded. The petitioner was found guilty of charges as the respondents have established the charges by cogent evidence and there being neither procedural nor jurisdictional 3 error in the departmental enquiry, the orders impugned do not require any interference. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of T.N. & Another Vs. A.Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 and Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.C.Chaturvedi, (1995) 6 SCC 750. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the record that petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Central Industrial Security Force (for short “the CISF” hereinafter) on the post of Security Guard in the year 1971. He served at various places of CISF during his service career and ultimately, came to be promoted to the post of ASI. His last place of posting was Chanderia Lead Zinc Smelter, Chittorgarh. While at Chittorgarh, on 23rd September, 1999, he was detailed for loading supervision of Truck No.RJ-27 G-3268 of M/s Sony Tech. Company, however, he failed to supervise that loading properly and effectively, resulting thereof, one motor was loaded in excess in the truck which was later recovered at the main gate during checking of the vehicle. Similarly while performing duty of supervision on 4 very day in between 0600 hrs. and 1800 hrs., he failed to sign on the material Gate pass, in token of his having supervised loading. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. Three charges were framed against the petitioner including the aforesaid two charges. The third charge against the petitioner was that he is habitual offender with a consistent bad service record and three major and 8 minor totaling 11 punishments having visited to him during his service career. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The enquiry officer recorded the statement of various witnesses as is evident from the orders impugned. The petitioner was given opportunity to defend himself and cross examine the prosecution departmental witnesses. From the statements of the witnesses, the enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner are found to have been proved and the Disciplinary Authority, by order impugned Annexure-13 dated 24th November, 2001, awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Group Commandant CISF. By order Annexure-14 dated 13th February, 2002, on re-appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there is no procedural flaw or legal infirmity in the proceedings and rejected the 5 appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Inspector General/SWS, CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs. The revisional Authority also did not find any error in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of Appellate Authority upholding the order of Disciplinary Authority. In my view, all the authorities have concurrently found the charges having been established against the petitioner and on such charges, as noticed above, retiring a person compulsorily cannot be said to be in any manner harsh or disproportionate to the delinquency. As has been noticed by the Disciplinary Authority, the proper punishment on such charges is to terminate the services of the delinquent but the Disciplinary Authority considering the long service of the petitioner, has taken a lenient view by imposing the penalty of Compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In the case of Government of T.N.& Anr. Vs. A.Rajapandian (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the departmental enquiry and Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 observed as under:- “The Administrative Tribunal fell into patent error in reappreciating and going into the sufficiency of 6 evidence. It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of the Supreme Court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the Disciplinary Authority has accepted and which material reasonably supports the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the Disciplinary Authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by reappreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority. In such a case, it is not necessary to go into the merits of appreciation of evidence by the two authorities as the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit as an Appellate Authority over the findings of the inquiring authority. Hence, the order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the order dismissing the respondent is upheld.” In Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.C.Chaturvedi (supra) while considering the scope of judicial review held that Court cannot interfere with findings of fact based on evidence and substitute its own independent findings. 7 Keeping in view the decisions referred hereinabove, in my view, there is no scope of re-appreciation of evidence. Even otherwise, for the reasons stated above, I find absolutely no error in the conclusion arrived at by three authorities i.e. the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as also revisional Authority and, therefore, no case for interference invoking extraordinary jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK