t^ .V-' t~ IN THE BIGH COJRT OF JUDICSTURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) . PETITIONER /^•^° ^y. y.-ivG^c;.' ,/•''.<^'<$^-"~ .^y^' <-.;^"./-" ^*'.^-" *^ WRIT PETITION NOT; . .T^.OF 03 y/ Yegendra Singh ChBUhant aged 27 years* S/o« Tirath Raj Singh» R/Oo Chhepal Ketar Thana and D-tstt. sidhi (M.;g. ) RESPONDENrS , 8 1 '»<1 VB RS U S State of 6- (" •»f/7/> through ; SeGretary Department ef Heme D.K.So Bhawan Raipur (c.G 2« laspector @eneral e£ Pelice Raipur (c.G.). 3« I.G. Sarguja Range Ambikq?ur» Distt. sarguja (C.G,)„ 4» Superittendeat of Pelice* Distt. Korea Baikunthpur» Distt. Korea (C.G.). PCTITION UNDER AKFICI»E 226/227'^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'c ^ssssssm^ HIGH COURT QFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2279 of2003 PETITIONER - : Yogendra Singh Chouhan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anil Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 12th day of April, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working as Constable in the police department, on a complaint made by one Manjit Singh, departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Afiter enquiry, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement by the Superintendent of Police, Koria on 01.07.2001 (Annexure P/l). Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 17.07.2002 (Annexure P/2). Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal which was also rejected vide order dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure P/3). 2. Shri Pandey submits that the order passed by the appellate authority is bad in law on account of the fact that the said order is a non-speaking order. 3. It is well settled that ifa higher authority affirms the order passed by his subordinate, the same is not required to be dealt with detailed reasons, briefreasons indicating application ofmind would serve the piirpose. 4. The Supreme Court, in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, RaniLakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Others , observed as under: "9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case it has been observed that: (SCCp. 613, para 36) ' (2009) 4 SCC 240 -iV ,.,: T^^.^,"^ -<%! H .idF^ ,'i liu.y ^ "cy .tJ-^ >dg«BBM13iS i*;S%. |^iel^FW^'i't'n:"':""'-""v'. 7. 9. 36. ... The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge." The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order ofaffirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order ofthe original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even briefreasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a cojitrary view •would mean that appellate autKorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lawer authority." In the case on hand, the Disciplinary Authority has given detailed reasons dealing with all the charges and the findings in the enquiry report. Thus, it is not a case where no reasons have been given by the appellate authority. The subordinate authority has already considered and decided all the issues and passed a reasoned order. In the case on hand, the Superintendent of Police, Koria has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement as there were serious allegations against the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in State ofU.P. & Others v. AshokKumar Singh & another , observed that a police constable, serving in disciplined force, which demands strict adherence to the mles and procedure more than any other department, in absenting himself from duty without permission, has committed grave misconduct, which has rightly resulted into removal from service. Further, in Commissioner ofPolice v. Syed Hussain , the Supreme Court observed that in view of the nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority had committed any error imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the respondent, particularly when on several occasions he has been found guilty ofmisconduct. The petitioner has not questioned the enquiry report or the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the (1996) 1 SCC 302 ??'!SWIIBl!HBB'>II"IS~i^.. .,<!<"t:"': "::t yt "r:<^ Amit 10. 11 report ofthe enquiry was a case ofno evidence or there is perversity in the enquiry report. It is also not a case of the petitioner that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the conscience ofthe Court. The Supreme Court, in Union oflndia & another v. K.G.Som , observed as under; isia y^gSS^a "14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience ofthe court, in the sense that it was in defiance oflogic or moral standards. In view ofwhat has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the cowt should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deflciency in the decision-making process andnot the decision." 12. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court, in Departmental Enquiry, should not interfere on any other ground except in case where the finding is based on no evidence or there is infinnity or perversity in the enquiry report on the basis of which, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order. 13. In view ofthe above, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. No order asto costs. -—— —-——— Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Judge ,1.