IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11936 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:15.03.2011 Krishan Lal ....Petitioner versus General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition contains a challenge to a departmental enquiry initiated against a driver that he employed foul languages against the works manager. The person that gave affirmation to the complaint of the works manager was his own peon. The workman defended his case by saying that it was a false case and stated that he was on sick leave on that day. The private witnesses had been examined including the vaid from his village that he had treated him on that day. The Enquiry Officer found that there was no evidence apart from the complainant and the evidence of his peon and hence found the charge as not established, but the disciplinary authority reversed the finding of the Enquiry Officer, Civil Writ Petition No.11936 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - making particular reference to the fact that the driver had, during the proceedings, purported to have admitted his offence and given it in writing, but the same had gone missing from the file. The disciplinary authority, therefore, reasoned that the important document could have been lost only at the instance of the delinquent himself, for, this would have conclusively established that he was guilty of misconduct attributed to him. 2. The learned counsel states that the finding had been entered by the Enquiry Officer without proper appreciation of evidence and wholly discarded the evidence of private witnesses. The Enquiry Officer had also observed in his report while finding him not guilty that there was a discrepancy between the version of the peon and the works manager about the time of the incident by at least two hours. The disciplinary authority, however, observed that this could have been due to an inadvertent error or loss of memory and could not be taken to be a vital piece of discrepancy to totally discredit the version of the works manager. 3. The scope of judicial review of decisions in departmental enquiry ought to be limited only to examining whether the particular authority was competent to pass the order which could be an instance of a jurisdictional error or could relate to issues where an authority relies on evidence which could not have been relied on or he omitted to rely on a particular evidence which was placed but he had ignored the same. The adequacy of the evidence for taking a decision before an authority cannot be a subject of review in a writ petition. What is urged in the writ Civil Writ Petition No.11936 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - petition is precisely this lapse that the disciplinary authority could not have merely relied on the evidence of the complainant and his peon and could not have discarded the evidence of the private witnesses. It is not, therefore, the issue of lack of evidence but it is the issue of adequacy thereof. I am not prepared to re-examine the issue of guilt from such a perspective. 4. I affirm the finding as regards the finding of guilt. On the issue of punishment itself again the scope of review will be confined only to a punishment which is capricious or so excessive to shock the conscience of the Court. This, I am afraid, cannot still avail to the petitioner to contend that the punishment meted out to the workman was denial of one increment with cumulative effect. If there was a misconduct of foul-mouthing his superior, the issue of punishment itself cannot be a matter of adjudication by this Court and that too, after a period of 20 years. 5. I have noticed from the records that after the decision was given and when it was brought through a challenge in the writ petition, this Court has merely admitted the case and has not granted any interim order. This will mean that in a normal course, the order must have been applied to him denying to him the increment for a year with cumulative effect. I do not find this to be fit for an intervention at this stage. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.03.2011 sanjeev