NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined

1. By this petition under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

6.9.2022 and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits excluding the same for the period of delay.

(B) during the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(C) To grant such other and further relief's as may be deemed fit."

When he was serving as Deputy Executive Engineer, he was served till he came to be dismissed from the service by an order dated 06.09.2002.

2.2 A charge-sheet dated 05.04.1997 came to be served upon the petitioner for holding departmental inquiry in respect of ten charges and therefore, the charge came to be framed against the petitioner mainly relating to the irregularities with regard to Page 2 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined purchase of spare parts of wheeldozers and buldozers.

2.3 It is contended that an Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the departmental inquiry, who as per report dated 25.01.2002, found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The respondent - Corporation agreed with the inquiry report dated 25.01.2002 and, thereafter, the Corporation issued show-cause notice dated 27.06.2002 asking him as to why he should not be dismissed from the service.

2.4 The charges levelled against the petitioner are as under:-

Corporation and an affidavit-in-rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard Mr.B. S. Patel, learned senior counsel for Ms.Harshal Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Maulik Nanavati for M/s.Nanavati & Co., appearing for the respondent - Corporation.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined

-: SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

5. Mr.Patel, learned senior counsel has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Corporation is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and against the principles of law. He has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Vehicle Pool Manger in 1988 and, thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer.

He has submitted that the inquiry conducted is violation of principles of natural justice and he was not given any opportunity to give reply to the relevant documents, which were pertaining to purchase of spare parts of buldozer and wheeldozer. While referring to Section 56(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"), Mr.Patel, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent -

Corporation has not provided sufficient opportunity of inspecting the documents and, therefore, committed an act contrary to the provisions of the Act. He has submitted that in view of the observations of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the alleged charge and the action on the party of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty in absence of any prima facie evidence is illegal Page 12 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined and arbitrary. He has submitted that the Inquiry Officer has acted on presumption against the petitioner and he admitted in his report that there is no direct evidence to show that the petitioner got opened the account in the name of Bharat Earth Movers Limited in the Bhagyodaya Cooperative Bank. He has submitted that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have not considered the reply to the show-cause notice filed by the petitioner and the final order of punishment would not reflect dealing with such contentions which vitiates the inquiry.

According to Mr.Patel, learned counsel, the dismissal order is a non-speaking order as it does not contain any details with regard to the charges, the defence of petitioner and the report of Inquiry Officer. He has submitted that in the year 1996, the criminal complaint came to be lodged, which was not resulted into any order till date and even the trial has been commenced yet. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.499 of 1999, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 29.01.2005 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.50 of 2005. Mr.Patel, learned counsel has Page 13 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined submitted that the impugned order dated 06.09.2002 be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential.

5.1 Mr.Patel, learned senior counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-

5.2 Over-and-above the oral submissions, the petitioner has submitted written submissions.

1) The inquiry was conducted in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner was not given opportunity to inspect the relevant and important documents as requested by him so as to enable him to file written defense statement. Those documents were pertaining to the purchase of spare parts of Bull dozer and Wheel dozer which was the main charge against him thus, the inquiry was conducted in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

2) The inquiry was conducted in violation of Section 56 (3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 which also mandates reasonable opportunity to officer or a servant to show cause against dismissal, removal and reduction to a lower post. By not providing opportunity of inspecting the documents, the respondent has acted contrary to the provisions made in the BPMC Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined

3) The petitioner cannot be held guilty in view of the observation made by the Inquiry Officer himself in the report to the fact that "For the reasons stated above, it is absolutely clear that the letter dated 19.10.1993, the receipts of payment and the invoices are all fake and not written and sent to the corporation by the BEML. It is difficult to say as to whose hand writing is there on those documents" (Page No. 40).

4) Thus, the action of the disciplinary authority as well as Inquiry Officer holding petitioner guilty in absence of any strong evidence to establish that the hand writing of letter dated 19.10.1993 was of the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and showing perversity of that part.

5) As per the report of Inquiry Officer, the letter dated 19.01.1993 had gone into hands of Assistant Municipal Corporation (PP), Deputy Engineer, Executive Engineer, Additional Superintendent Engineer, Chief Officer Forum, Chief Accountant, Chief Auditor and Municipal Commissioner. None of the above officers are even touched in this chapter meaning thereby, just to make the petitioner scope goat. Inquiry was held against the three persons out of whom two are exonerated and petitioner is dismissed.

6) One of the witnesses named Lalit Patel, Clerk stated that the pages from the account book were changed by Shree Takkar and Shree Mafatbhai (Both were Clerk). Despite this submission, no action was ever taken against those two employees and this aspect has not been considered by the Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority.

7) The Inquiry Officer has acted on presumption against the petitioner. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer himself has admitted the fact that there is no direct evidence to show that the petitioner got the account opened in the name of 'Bharat Earth Movers Limited' in the Bhagyodaya Co-operative Bank. The Inquiry Officer has observed that "It can safely be presumed that those two drafts were got deposited by petitioner in fictitious account". (Page No. 49 of petition). The Inquiry officer being quasi judicial authority should not act on assumption and presumption, thus, to act on presumption is the perversity on the part of the inquiry officer which is not permissible in eyes of law.

8) Neither the Disciplinary Authority nor Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the final reply of petitioner submitted in response to show cause notice whereby the petitioner has submitted charge wise reply but same is no considered by Disciplinary Authority. The Page 15 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined final punishment order would not also reflect dealing with the contentions of petitioner which vitiates the inquiry and therefore, final order is required to be quashed and set aside.

9) The final punishment order dismissing the petitioner from service is a non-speaking order because it does not contain any detail as to what were the charges, what was the defense of petitioner, what was the report of Inquiry Officer, hence the punishment order being non speaking order is required to be quashed and set aside.

10) In the year 1996, Criminal Complaint has been lodged but the same has not been resulted into any order till date. Even trial has been commenced yet.

• Case Laws in support of the petitioner:

ii. ( 2010) 13 SCC 427, Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors .

iii. ( 2007) 10 SCC 712, Union of India and Ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh and Ors .

"6 As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, Page 17 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined without indicating any reason, the High Court has described the policy to be arbitrary. Interestingly, the writ petitioner had not challenged the legality of the policy. In fact, he was claiming benefit under the policy. Unfortunately, the High Court travelled beyond the pleadings. It did not grant any opportunity to the present appellant to file even counter-affidavit and by a non- reasoned order struck down the policy. The Order of the High Court has been stayed by this Court on 1-9-1999.

"7. 11 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reason, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable."

-:SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined ( 3) The Indian Oil Corporation and others Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Another rendered in Civil Appeal No.3663 of 2023 dated 17.05.2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court = 2023 AIR SC 2388.

7. It is worthwhile to refer to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

7.1 In the case of Boloram Bordoloi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para-11 as under:-

7.2 In the case of Subrata Nath (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras - 14 to 18, 25 to 29 as under:-

18. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran , (2015) 2 SCC 610 held thus :

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

25. We have noted above that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority had met with the approval of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. However, the learned Single Judge overturned the order of dismissal from service and converted the same to compulsory retirement on the sole ground of non- availability of the original record, more specifically, the Beat Book, while giving a go-by to the extract of the Beat Book that was produced before the Inquiry Officer and the fact that the respondent had admitted the said document. The learned Single Judge also ignored the fact that the Beat Book was not the only piece of document produced before the Inquiry Officer. There were depositions of other witnesses produced by the department to prove the charges levelled against the respondent and the said witnesses had corroborated the version of the Department. At no stage, did the learned Single Judge observe that the departmental inquiry was vitiated on account of violation of the rules of natural justice or that Page 25 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined the inquiry had been conducted in gross violation of the statutory rules.

26. The Division Bench went a step further and proceeded to reappreciate the evidence and observed that it was not persuaded to conclude that such a major theft of 800 kgs comprising of 42 bundles of copper wires could have happened "in the blink of an eyelid" despite holding that the view of the learned Single Judge regarding non- production of the original Beat Book was unsustainable. The Court held that the allegation of connivance in the theft levelled against the respondent was presumptive and there wasnt enough evidence to conclude that theft of such a magnitude could have happened during the duty period of the respondent alone, yet charge-I pertaining to negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent was sustained. At the same time, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing substitution of the punishment of dismissal with that of compulsory retirement was set aside and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages, while giving liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh order of punishment commensurate to the negligence and dereliction of duties on his part, except for punishment of dismissal or removal from service or compulsory retirement.

27. We are unable to commend the approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. There was no good reason for the High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer. This was clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, fell into an error by setting aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority.

28. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings returned by and conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, duly confirmed by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the Revisional Authority in respect of both the Articles of Charge levelled against the respondent and the punishment imposed on him. The respondent being a member of the disciplined force, was expected to have discharged his duty diligently. His gross negligence and dereliction of duty has resulted in theft of 800 kgs. copper wires Page 26 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined from the spot where he was performing his duty. Further, the records reveal that the respondent did not mend his ways during thirteen years of service rendered by him and was awarded eight punishments for various delinquencies out of which, three punishments included stoppage of increment on two occasions for one year without cumulative effect twice and stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect on one occasion. In such circumstances, the desirability of continuing the respondent in the Armed Forces is certainly questionable and the Disciplinary Authority could not be expected to wear blinkers in respect of his past conduct while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on him.

29. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 9th September, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in FMA No.679 of 2019 and FMA No. 680 of 2019 and the order dated 25th June, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.14102 (W) of 2009, while restoring the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, as elaborated in the order dated 27th November, 2008, duly upheld by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 3rd February, 2009 and endorsed by the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 19th May, 2009. In our view, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent is commensurate with the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on his part."

7.3 In the case of Ajit Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-6 and 7 as under:-

was changed is not in dispute. When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document. This fact has not even been noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

8. Having considered the materials on record and having considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for both the sides, the only question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief as prayed for in this petition.

9. It is worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India Versus Dwarka Prasad Tiwar reported in (2006) 10 SCC 388 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board Versus T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108.

10. In the case of Dwarka Prasad Tiwar (supra), the Hon'ble Page 29 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined Supreme Court has held and observed in paras - 12 to 15 as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined

11. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras - 18 and 30 as under:-

12. It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of C S. Amin Vs. Assistant General Manager SBI, Region III & 2 reported in 2016 LawSuit (Guj) 1916 and Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and 2 reported in 2017 LawSuit (Guj) 9 where in this Court has decided similar issue as involved in the present petition.

13. In the case of C. S. Amin (supra), this Court has held and observed in paras - 29, 30 and 31 as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined (1) To judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory discretion normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties or was one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the material before him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The Court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bonafide. The Court would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. The Court would not however go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him. Nor could the Court substitute its decision to that of the administrator. This is the Wednesbury test.

(2) The Court would not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including proportionality being brought into English Administrative Law in future is not ruled out. These are the CCSU principles.

(3)(a) As per Bugdaycay, Brind and Smith, as long as the European Human Rights Convention (Contention) is not incorporated into English Law, the English Courts merely exercise a secondary judgement to find out if the decision maker could have, on the material before him, arrived at the primary judgment in the manner he has done. (3)(b) If the Convention is incorporated in England making available the principle of proportionality, then the English Courts will render primary judgement on the validity of the administrative action and find out if the restriction is disproportionate or excessive or is not based upon a fair balancing of the fundamental freedom and the need for the restriction thereupon.

(4)(a) The position in our country in administrative law, where no fundamental freedoms are involved, is that the Courts/Tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary judgement as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority. The secondary judgement of the Court is to be based on Wednesbury the CCSU principles as stated by Lord Greene and Lord Diplock respectively to find if the executive or administrative authority has reasonably arrived at his decision as the primary authority.

(4)(b) Whether in the case of administrative or executive action affecting fundamental freedoms, the Courts in our country will apply Page 33 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined the principle of 'proportionality' and assume a primary role, is left open, to be decided in an appropriate case where such action is alleged to offend fundamental freedoms."

In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra - (1999) 1 SCC 759, the Supreme Court reiterated the otherwise well settled principles of law on the scope of judicial review of disciplinary action taken by the employer and laid down the following propositions:-

In Om Kumar Vs. Union of India - AIR 2000 SC 3689, the Supreme Court traced the history of the principle of proportionality, referred to the propositions culled out in Ganayutham 's case (supra), noticed the decision of the House of Lords in R. Vs. Chief Constable of Sussesc ex.p. International Trader's Ferry Ltd. (1999) 1 All ER 129, wherein the principles of Wednesbury and proportionality were almost equated and held that where the decision of an administrative authority is attacked being arbitrary, the principle of secondary review will have to be kept in mind. Paragraphs 28, 29 66 to 71 of this judgement which theortises the law on the subject are reproduced below:

"67. But where, an administrative action is challenged as 'arbitrary' under Art. 14 on the basis of Royappa (as in cases where punishments in disciplinary cases are challenged), the question will be whether the administrative order is 'rational' or 'reasonable' and the test then is the Wednesbury test. The Courts would then be confined only to a secondary role and will only have to see whether the Administrator has done well in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors in to consideration or whether his view is one which no reasonable person could have taken. If his action does not satisfy these rules, it is to be treated as arbitrary. (In G.B. Mahajan V. Jalgaon Municipal Council (1991) 3 SCC 91 at p. 111 :

In Regional Manager U.P. SRTC V. Hoti Lal (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Supreme Court outlined the mode to be adopted for determining whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate and observed as under:

30 The above noted decision of this Court gives a clear idea of the limited scope of judicial review of the discretion exercised by the employer to impose the particular penalty on the delinquent employee. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the High Courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters and substitute their opinion for the one formed by the disciplinary authority. It has also been held that the punishment imposed by the competent authority cannot be modified/substituted with a lesser penalty unless the Court is satisfied that the same is grossly or shockingly disproportionate or is so unreasonable that no person of reasonable prudence would have imposed such punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.

31. For determination of the question whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, the Court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved, the past conduct of the employee, the punishment if any imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned to the employee having due regard to their sensitiveness, performance norms if any laid down by the employer and above all the paramount requirement of maintaining discipline in the service."

14. In the case of Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi (supra), this Court has held and observed in paras - 17, 18 and 21 as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined

(g). the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h). the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i). the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13 Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

14 In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao1 , many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus:

15 In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557], the principles have been further discussed at paragraphs 21 to 24, which read as follows:

16 These principles have been succinctly summedup by the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491]. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions:

17 In all the subsequent decisions of this Court up to the latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (AIR 2014 SC 1141), these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering anything.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined 18 On Article I, the disciplinary authority, while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement in the impugned order dated 28.02.2000, had arrived at the following findings:

19 The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 20 Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."

15. So far as the legal position on the aspect of Section 56 (3) of the Act which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it provides of reasonable opportunity, Page 44 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined which reads thus:

16. So far as the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.499 of 1999, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 29.01.2005 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.50 of 2005 is concerned, the facts of that case and the present case are totally different and it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. From 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the fact that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has very limited scope to interfere with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority.

17. The above-mentioned decisions of this Court gives a clear idea of the limited scope of judicial review of the discretion exercised by the employer to impose the particular penalty on Page 45 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined the delinquent employee. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the High Courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters and substitute their opinion for the one formed by the disciplinary authority. It has been held that the punishment imposed by the competent authority cannot be modified / substituted with a lesser penalty unless the Court is satisfied that the same is grossly or shockingly disproprtionate or is so unreasonable that no person of reasonable prudence would have imposed such punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.

18. For determination of the question whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, the Court has to take into consideration all the relevant facts including the nature of charges proved, the past conduct of the employee, the punishment if any imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned to the employee having due regard to their sensitiveness performance norms if any laid down by the employer and above all the paramount requirement of maintaining discipline in the service.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12782/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2024 undefined

19. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the appellate authority has recorded its findings after perusing and going through the materials on record and, therefore, both the authorities have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders and hence, the present petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.

20. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 47 of 47 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 20:57:41 IST 2024