ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK. O.J.C. No. 2314 of 1998 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------- Sobhakant Mishra … Petitioner Versus Inspector General, C.I.S.F. and others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. Biswa Mohan Patnaik, R. Sharma and S.K. Singhsamanta. For Opp. Parties : Miss Rajashree Bahal And Mr. S.D. Das. ---------- P R E S E N T : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L. MOHAPATRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. DASH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Judgment : 19.07.2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.R. Dash, J. This writ petition arises out of a Disciplinary Proceeding. The petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (‘C.I.S.F.’ for short) Unit, R.S.P., Rourkela, was preceded under Rule 34 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 1969 on serious charges of misconduct and was removed from service. He has prayed for quashing of the order of the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-9, appellate order vide Annexure-11 and revisional order vide Annexure-13. 2. The petitioner jointed as a Constable in C.I.S.F. on 01.05.1980 on being posted in the C.I.S.F. Unit at B.C.C.L., Jharia. Then he was posted in the C.I.S.F. Unit at Durgapur Steel Plant from January, 1991 to July, 1995. During his incumbency at Durgapur he is alleged to have collected money amounting to Rs.36,500/- (thirty-six thousand five hundred) from seven persons under fraudulent promises to get them employed in Central Reserve Police Force (‘C.R.P.F.’ for short) through a stranger introduced to be his brother-in-law. The delinquency, as alleged, relates to December 1994 and January 1995. Said brother-in-law of the petitioner and petitioner’s wife are alleged to have helped the petitioner in such evil design. While matter stood thus, the petitioner was transferred to C.I.S.F. Unit, R.S.P., Rourkela in July, 1995. During his incumbency at Durgapur a preliminary enquiry on the aforesaid allegation was conducted in June, 1995 and basing upon the preliminary enquiry report, charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 05.10.1995 by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, Rourkela. The petitioner entered appearance, filed show-cause, order was passed for disciplinary enquiry and on the basis of disciplinary enquiry, order was passed vide Annexure-9 by the Enquiring Officer. Petitioner preferred appeal and revision in vain, and the order of his removal from service was maintained both in appeal and revision. 3. The opposite parties filed counter affidavit refuting all the assertions made in the writ petition and it was contended in the counter 2 affidavit that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with Rule 34 of the C.I.S.F. Rules 1969 giving all opportunities of being heard to the petitioner and complying with all the principles of natural justice. The order of removal passed against the petitioner is justified and lawful, according to the assertions in the counter affidavit. 4. The petitioner has impugned the orders vide Annexures 9, 11 and 13 on the following grounds :- (i) Violation of the principles of natural justice for non-supply of relevant records sought for by the petitioner; (ii) Non-consideration of fact by both appellate and revisional authorities that on the relevant dates, i.e., 25.12.1994 to 02.01.1995 the petitioner was not in his house, as on those days he was hospitalized for medical treatment. In view of such fact, assertion of the witnesses that they gave money to the petitioner in his house during the aforesaid period is false, and the findings arrived at by the authorities concerned is vitiated; (iii) The opposite parties having not lodged any complaint before any police authority regarding the fraudulent action of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Proceeding on the basis of a stage managed preliminary enquiry is an after-thought; and (iv) The petitioner having committed the alleged delinquency during his incumbency at Durgapur, service of charge-sheet on him at Rourkela and subsequent enquiry in culminating 3 his removal from service on the basis of such enquiry is violative of Rule 32 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 2001. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of hearing, confined his argument mainly to two grounds, i.e. – (1) As the petitioner was hospitalized at the relevant time, the assertion of the witnesses to the effect that they gave money to the petitioner in his house to get job for them in the C.R.P.F. is false and cannot be held to have been substantiated. (2) Conduct of enquiry or the Disciplinary Proceeding at the behest of opposite party no.3 at Rourkela is violative of Rule 32 of the C.I.S.F. Rules. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand supports the impugned order vide Annexures 9, 11 and 13. 6. It is the settled law that in exercise of the power of judicial review, the Court has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion, which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the view of the Court. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on some evidence, Court is devoid of power to re-appreciate the evidence and it is precluded from coming to its own conclusion on the proof of charge. The only consideration the Court has in its judicial review is to find out whether 4 the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. 7. With the aforesaid background of law in mind, if the first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is addressed, it would be seen that there is material on record to prove false promise by the petitioner to get job to some of the witnesses in C.R.P.F. through his brother-in-law; those witnesses are asserted to have given money to the wife of the petitioner and to the petitioner in his house on 31.12.1994 and 01.01.1995. The witnesses have described in detail as to how the money passed hands and the talk between them and others involved. The petitioner has taken the plea of alibi on the ground that he was in the hospital at the relevant time. Such a defence is found to have been disbelieved by the authorities concerned on different grounds, inter alia that there is no cross-examination, on this point, of the relevant witnesses asserted to have given money to either the petitioner or his wife. The findings arrived at by the authorities concerned cannot be said to be perverse or cannot be said to be without evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to show us as to what infirmity is there in the decision making process by the authorities concerned except the aforesaid infirmity of non-consideration of a piece of evidence alleged to be supportive of the petitioner. In view of the settled law, we do not find justification to interfere in the findings arrived at by the authorities concerned on this score. 8. Coming to the second contention, Rule 32 of the C.I.S.F. Rules 2001 reads as follows :- 5 “32. Disciplinary Authorities. – (1) The disciplinary authority in respect of an enrolled member of the Force for the purpose of imposing any particular penalty or the passing of any disciplinary order shall be the authority specified in this behalf in Schedule I under whose administrative control the enrolled member is serving and shall include any authority mentioned in the said Schedule superior to such authority. (2) Whenever an enrolled member of the Force is deployed for operational duty or any other duty or course of training outside the place of his permanent posting, then a supervisory officer under whose control such member has been so deployed shall be competent to place him under suspension. Such supervisory officer shall refer the matter to concerned disciplinary authority as mentioned in sub-rule (1). (3) A disciplinary authority competent under Schedule I to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of rule 34 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any enrolled member of the Force for imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under Schedule I to impose any such penalties.” 9. The aforesaid rules shows that according to Schedule I, the disciplinary authority in respect of an enrolled member of the Force is the Senior Commandant, under whose administrative control the enrolled member is serving and shall also include any authority mentioned in Schedule I superior to the Senior Commandant. It is not disputed that opposite party no.3 is the Disciplinary Authority so far as the C.I.S.F. Unit, R.S.P., Rourkela is concerned. The dispute raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that as the alleged delinquency by the petitioner relates to his period of incumbency at 6 Durgapur, the Commandant in Rourkela (opp. party no.3) had no authority to initiate the disciplinary proceeding. 10. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the clear and unambiguous language in Rule 32 of the C.I.S.F. Rules does not commend to us. The C.I.S.F. is a unified force deployed throughout India in different industrial concerns. The enrolled members of the Force are on transferable jobs. The delinquency of one place can be enquired into at another place under whose administrative control the enrolled member of the Force is serving at the relevant time of enquiry or disciplinary proceeding. By transfer of a staff borne in a transferable job, continuity of his service is not severed and, therefore, the action taken by opposite party no.3 against the petitioner on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report cannot be said to be violative of Rule 32 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, as opposite party no.3 is the authority competent to pass disciplinary order of removal from service in respect of any enrolled member of the Force under his administrative control. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. …………………. L. Mohapatra, J. I agree. …………………. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 19th day of July, 2011. /Parida. 7