1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14 , 16 , 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has Page 1 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined challenged order/decision dated 19/06-07/2016 terminating the service of the petitioner and prayed inter-

alia that:-

114-15/1852/2016, whereby, the respondent no.1 Director General Of Police pleased to dismiss the Revision Application being No. 114 of 2015 and confirm the termination order passed by the respondent no 2 superintendent of Police Surat and direct the respondent no.1 to reinstate the petitioner on his original post by way of issuing writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other writ, order or directions.

(b) Such other and further reliefs as are deemed fit in facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted.

(c) To provide cost of this petition."

2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the present petitioner was serving in the Police Department as Armed Lok Rakshak since 19/10/2006 with full honesty, sincerely. The present petitioner served with the Chargesheet on 30/08/2013 for unauthorized absenteeism from 29/12/2010. In past also the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from the service and therefore, the department took action against the Page 2 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined petitioner and served the Chargesheet. The second charge was that on 24/04/2012 the petitioner entered in to the premises of the Dakshaben Dabhi i.e. wife of the petitioner and threatened her.

2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted the documents and reply.

Due to the medical problem of his father, the petitioner could not remain present on duty. There is matrimonial dispute with the petitioner and his wife and wife has filed criminal complaint against the present petitioner and present petitioner has to appears in that proceedings and defend himself. Therefore, due to matrimonial and medical problem, the petitioner could not remain present on duty.

2.2 After full-fledged inquiry, the inquiry officer by his order dated 01/11/2014 held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and recommended the termination. On 02/12/2014, the petitioner filed detailed representation/reply and narrated all the difficulties faced by the petitioner during that period.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined 2.3 The respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner and by order dated 29/01/2015 terminated the service of the petitioner.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the respondent no.3, the present petitioner has filed the Appeal before the respondent no.2 on 22/04/2015. After hearing, the respondent no.2 has dismissed the appeal by order dated 02/06/2015. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order date 02/06/2015, the petitioner has filed the Revision Application No. 114 of 15 before the respondent no.1.

After hearing, the respondent no 1 by his order dated 19/06-07/2016 dismissed the Revision Application No. 114 of 2015 and confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.3 terminating the service of the petitioner.

2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 19/06-07/2016 passed by the respondent no.1, the petitioner has filed present petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned Counsel for the Page 4 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined petitioner and Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents.

4. It appears from the record that the petitioner was originally appointed as Armed Lok Rakshak in the police department and from 2006 the petitioner was working as Armed Lok Rakshak. The petitioner was served with chargesheet dated 30th August 2013, alleging that the petitioner was absent from service from 29.12.2010 without prior permission of the superior officer and thereafter, number of notices were issued to the petitioner to remain personally present and join the duty, however the petitioner did not remain present on duty and therefore, for the charge alleged in the chargesheet the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The said charges were proved during the course of inquiry and on the basis of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority has passed order of dismissal. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as below:-

3/- Earlier too, you have remained absent during the below stated time periods.

Sr. Period of absence - from and to No. of Days date 1 From 19/07/2007 to 06/08/2007 18 days 2 From 01/09/2007 to 06/11/2007 67 days 3 From 20/0/2008 to 20/02/2008 32 days 4 From 15/05/2008 to 17/07/2009 429 days 5 From 23/11/2009 to 23/12/2009 30 days 6 From 24/12/2009 to 17/0/2010 25 days 7 From 02/02/2010 to 31/05/2010 119 days 4/- On 24/04/2012, you entered the House no.31, Tripada Society at Dholka, illegally, and threatened Ms. Dakshaben Ranjitbhai Dabhi for her life.

Thus, it appears that you are habitual of remaining absent from duty and negligent towards your duty. By Page 6 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined remaining absent arbitrarily, you have defaulted in performing of duty as is expected from a public servant, shown negligence towards duty, committed a serious misconduct and dereliction of duty. Further, as during your absence from duty, an offense came to be registered against you, you have behaved in an undisciplined manner of unbecoming of a policeman, the department which adheres to strict discipline. Thus, you have committed gross negligence and dereliction of duty and thereby, you have committed a default in view of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971 by remaining absent arbitrarily and behaving in a manner lacking dutifulness and unbecoming of a government servant for which you are being given this Charge-Sheet.

The Statement of Imputation, List of Evidence and the List of Prosecution Witnesses are appended herewith.

You are being informed to clearly state as to whether you want to present a statement in defense, in-person or written, against the aforesaid Charge-Sheet or not. You may present a statement of defense within 15 days of receiving this notice, on failing to do so within stipulated time, it shall be presumed that you neither want to present a statement of defense nor examine or produce any witness.

Further, he is being asked to give explanation as to why shouldn't it be considered a bonafide and sufficient reason for awarding him any of the penalty prescribed under Rule-3 of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956 in the instance of any of the aforesaid charge being proved. Whatever statement made by him may be taken into consideration before the final order as to the punishment."

5. After considering the documentary evidence and after Page 7 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined completing the evidence, the disciplinary authority has held guilty the petitioner for the alleged charges and passed order dated 29.01.2015. The said order was further challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority by way of preferring the departmental appeal.

The said appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 02.06.2015. The said order was further challenged by the petitioner before the revisional authority and the revisional authority has confirmed the order passed by both the authorities i.e. disciplinary authority and appellate authority, while exercising the power of revision, vide order dated 19/6.7.2016. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition and challenged the order of punishment imposed by the authority.

6. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that considering the charges leveled against the petitioner, the punishment imposed by the respondents is very harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner and therefore, the Page 8 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6.1 Mr. Hiren Modi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the charge of absenteeism is not a graver charge and therefore, respondent ought not to have passed major penalty against the petitioner of removal from service.

6.2 Mr. Hiren Modi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the authority of removal of service of the petitioner, may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay all the consequential benefit to the petitioner.

7. As against that Ms.Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and more particularly the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined Ms.Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 which are as follow:-

J. I respectfully say and submit that on 24.10.2013 the Answering Deponent had issued the order which is annexed as Annexure-R-7 wherein the Departmental Inquiry was initiated the report was to appoint the presiding officer who had selected to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner.

K.I respectfully say and submit that hence on 29.01.2016 Page 11 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined petitioner was dismissed from the services and on 22.04.2015 the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said Appeal No.1301/15 on 02.06.2015 petitioner preferred another which was rejected on 04.08.2015 the petitioner preferred a Revision Application.

L. Being aggrieved the petitioner prefer this petition.

7. I respectfully say and submit that out to regular absenteeism of the petitioner the petition from the duty as he has never sought reply evenwhen petitioner was served with several notices and its report dated 13.10.2014 was very clear for remaining regular absence and misbehave with his wife the petitioner was dismissed from his duty."

7.1 Learned AGP has urged before this Court that in view of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, this Court while sitting in the writ jurisdiction under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may not exercise the power by interfering in the order of punishment recorded by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, as it is well settled.

7.2 In view of the above, learned AGP urges before this Court that this petition may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined

8. I have considered the material placed on record along with relevant papers and the order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The issue involved in present petition is that whether the Court can interfere in the order of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority, on the ground of disproportionate or quantum, and what is the scope. The law is settled on that aspect, let I may clarify the situation.

9. It is now well settled that in case of the punishment based upon the inquiry report, if the disciplinary authority, after going through the evidence and hearing the delinquent, is found that the charges leveled against the delinquent are proved then while imposing the punishment, the disciplinary authority has to consider the quantum of punishment. Here in present case, the disciplinary authority has after considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, which are not only of the absenteeism but also of the criminal proceedings initiated Page 13 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined against the petitioner with regard to matrimonial dispute and with regard to others and after considering the defence and the reply filed by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority during the course of the inquiry, has come to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and therefore, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of punishment, for which, in my opinion there is no any infirmity or illegality committed by the disciplinary authority and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the order of disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.

10. At this stage it is appropriate to take into account relevant decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as follow:-.

11. In the decision in case of President and anr. vs. Ghemarbhai Sedhabhai Chaudhary reported in 2022 (2) GLR 912, the relevant head note is as follows:-

12. In the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka and another vs. N. Gangaraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraph Nos. 8 to 15 as under:-

10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors.3 , again, a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:

11. In High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr.4 , this Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as under:

12. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya 5, this Court held that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries.

The Court held as under:

Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana - 1999 (5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil - 2001 (1) SCC416).

10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect the validity Page 20 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality by non-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him."

13. In another judgement reported as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran6 , this Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings:

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

14. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari7 , wherein this Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a finding that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is unreasonably arrived at, the Writ Court could interfere with the finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary 6 (2015) 2 SCC 610 7 2017 2 SCC 308 authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in Page 22 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined the evidence of the Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct.

15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the Courts are the Appellate Authority. We may notice that the said judgment has not noticed larger bench judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao and B.C. Chaturvedi as mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court suffer from patent illegality and thus cannot be sustained in law."

13. In the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. A. G. D. Reddy reported in 2023 (11) Scale 530, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraph Nos. 32 and 37 as under:-

14. In the decision of coordinate bench this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1305 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 15418 of 2019 decided on 15.3.2023, this Court has held as under:-

28. In Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham [14], the Court analysed the conception of proportionality in administrative law in England and India and thereafter addressed itself with regard to the punishment in disciplinary matters and opined that unless the court/tribunal opines in its secondary role that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational according to Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.[15] and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service[16] norms, the punishment cannot be quashed.

29. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others[17], the Court, after analyzing the doctrine of proportionality at length, ruled thus: -

30. After so stating the two-Judge Bench proceeded to say that one of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment is whether any reasonable employer would have imposed such punishment in like circumstances taking into consideration the major, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances after excluding irrelevant matters before imposing Page 26 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined punishment. It is apt to note here that in the said case the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for six months and admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he neither had any intention nor desire to disobey the order of superior authority or violated any of the rules or regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control. Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix, the Court interfered with the punishment on the ground of proportionality. The facts in the present case are quite different. As has been seen from the analysis made by the High Court, it has given emphasis on past misconduct of absence and first time desertion and thereafter proceeded to apply the doctrine of proportionality. The aforesaid approach is obviously incorrect. It is telltale that the respondent had remained absent for a considerable length of time. He had exhibited adamantine attitude in not responding to the communications from the employer while he was unauthorisedly absent. As it appears, he has chosen his way, possibly nurturing the idea that he can remain absent for any length of time, apply for grant of leave at any time and also knock at the doors of the court at his own will. Learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that he had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of "habitual absenteeism" is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that the Page 27 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate.

31. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Government of India and another v. George Philip [18]: - "In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months' time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organization. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same."

32. We respectfully reiterate the said feeling and re- state with the hope that employees in any organization should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organization. When we say this, we may not be understood to have stated that the employers should be harsh to impose grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable atmosphere in an organization develops the work culture and the employer and the employees are expected to remember the same as a precious value for systemic development.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined

33. Judged on the anvil of the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is that the interference by the High Court with the punishment is totally unwarranted and unsustainable, and further the High Court was wholly unjustified in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of four years. The result of aforesaid analysis would entail overturning the judgments and orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and, accordingly, we so do."

15. 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 wherein this Court has observed as under:-

Disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Service Rules.

26. This court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao , AIR 1963 SC 1723 held:

22. In a very recent pronouncement in the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [2015(2) SCC 610], the Supreme Court in details has explained the position of law so Page 30 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined far as the scope of interference in the matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings is concerned. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court from paras 12 to 20 as under:

appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 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:

The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not Page 36 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do." 16 These principles have been succinctly summed-up 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:

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. 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 Page 38 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined 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.

23. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank (supra), the Supreme Court in paras 14 and 15 held as under:

v. Crabtres (1974 LCR 120), it was observed :

24. In the case of Bela Bagchi (supra), the Supreme Court observed the following in para 15:

Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) (9) SCC 69), it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance.

25. In the case of Ganesh Santa Ram (supra), the Page 42 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined Supreme Court observed in paras 32 and 33 as under:

In the instant case Charge No.5 framed against Page 43 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined the appellant is very serious and grave in nature. We have already extracted the relevant rule which prohibits the Bank Manager to sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan the appellant does not appear to have kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realized the mistake later and tried to salvage the same by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decisions. The Rule 34(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and therefore as rightly pointed out by Mr. Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as Bank Manager. The punishment of removal awarded by the Appellate Authority is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before concluding, we may usefully rely on the judgment Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal and Anr. reported in 2003(3) SCC 605. Wherein this Court has held as under :- "If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that Page 44 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned single Judge upholding the order of dismissal."

26. In the case of A.L. Tripathi (Supra), the observations of the Supreme Court in Para-36 are relevant:- 36. We may also mention that the appellant has contended that there is no evidence that the appellant has actually defrauded the Bank or actual loss or damage has been caused to the Bank or actual risk has been incurred by the Bank. That is true. But the charge against the appellant was that he had so conducted himself which exposed the Bank to grave risk and for which his explanation was not accepted, after considering his explanation and after personal hearing reasonably an opinion may be formed that his conduct was such that defrauding of the Bank might have been caused. These were the charges against, him and these are the charges upon which he was accused. Therefore, whether actual loss or damage had been caused or not, is in our opinion immaterial. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the arguments on this aspect of the matter on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the question whether these rules under which the enquiry was conducted were statutory rules or not and as such whether the appellant has any statutory remedy against the orders impugned.

27. In view of the various judgments referred to above , no case could be said to have been made out by the writ applicant herein for interference. It is not a case of "no evidence". If there is some legal evidence on record and the Page 45 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined same has been accepted, then this Court should not interfere in the matters arising from the departmental inquiry.

28. The above takes me to consider the last submission of Mr. Mehta that the penalty of dismissal in the facts of the case and having regard to the nature of the misconduct could be said to be shockingly disproportionate."

16. In the case of Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and 2 reported in 2017 LawSuit (Guj) 9 this Court has held as under:-

"17. It is now well settled by a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court that in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not venture into the reappreciation of evidence or interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority in the inquiry proceedings, if the same are conducted in accordance with law or go into the reliability / adequacy of evidence, or interfere, if there is some legal evidence on which the findings are based, or correct error of fact however grave it may be, or go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.

18. It is equally well settled that the High Courts in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 can only consider whether the inquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with the procedure established by law, and the principles of natural justice,whether irrelevant or extraneous consideration and/or exclusion of admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence being influenced the decision rendering it vulnerable.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined

21. In a very recent pronouncement in the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [2015(2) SCC 610], the Supreme Court in details has explained the position of law so far as the scope of interference in the matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings is concerned. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court from paras 12 to 20 as under:

interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

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:

K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477).

24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do." 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 Page 52 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined 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. 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: "Article was held as proved by the Inquiry authority after evaluating the evidence adduced in the case. Under the circumstances of the case, the evidence relied on viz., letter dated 11.12.92 written by Shri P. Gunasekaran, provides a reasonable nexus Page 53 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined to the charge framed against him and he did not controvert the contents of the said letter dated 11.12.92 during the time of inquiry. Nor did he produce any defence witness during the inquiry to support his claims including that on 23.11.92 he left the office on permission. There is nothing to indicate that he was handicapped in producing his defence witness. . ...

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined

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 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 Page 55 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined 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.

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) SURESH SOLANKI Page 56 of 56 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 16 21:07:10 IST 2024