Ranvir Singh vs Union Of India And Others

Satyen Vaidya, J

The appellant has assailed judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 3031 of 2010.

The appellant was employed as a Driver in Central Reserve Police Force (for short, “CRPF”). He was served with a chargesheet vide memo dated 05.01.2007. The appellant was charged with the misconduct of having been arrested by J & K Police for illicit selling of diesel from Government Vehicle and for such reason having remained in police custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. The conduct of appellant was alleged to be pre-judicial to the good orders and discipline of the force.

On denial of the charge by the appellant, he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding. An inquiry was conducted and the above charge was held proved against the appellant.

The disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.05.2007 concurred with the inquiry report and inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. The appeal and revision filed by the appellant under the relevant service rules were also dismissed. Thereafter the appellant had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3031 of 2010 assailing inter alia the order of punishment and also the orders of dismissal of his appeal and revision by the appellate and revisional authorities.

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant by holding that there was no infirmity found in the procedure followed by the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority. The order passed by the appellate authority has also been found by the learned Single Judge to be a reasoned and speaking order. Reliance was placed by learned Single Judge on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 to hold that the Courts can interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters only if either the violation of principles of natural justice is found or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous consideration.

Further, learned Single Judge also rejected the plea of the appellant that the punishment inflicted upon him was disproportionate to the charge proved against him. Learned Single Judge did not find any circumstance to warrant any interference in the penalty.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the order of penalty was vitiated being based on a perverse inquiry report. He further contended that learned Single Judge also did not appreciate that the punishment imposed upon the appellant was disproportionate to the misconduct proved against appellant.

Power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority as reiterated in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612.

While expounding the legal position, it has further been held in Ajai Kumar Srivastava (supra) as under:

“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine:

(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;

(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.”

The judgment impugned in the instant appeal has duly taken care of the above noted well settled proposition. It was not a case where the order of punishment was issued against the appellant by an authority not having jurisdiction or was based on the inquiry conducted in violation of principle of natural justice.

As regards the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the appellant, again we do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was a member of disciplined force (CRPF) and the charge of misconduct proved against him cannot be brushed aside as being of trivial nature.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle as under:

“28. Presently, we shall proceed to scrutinize whether the High Court is justified in applying the doctrine of proportionality. The doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court. In this regard a passage from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another v. Ashok Kumar Arora (1997) 3 SCC 72 is worth reproducing:

(SCC pp. 77-78, para 20)

“20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee.”

Learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be disproportionate in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We do not find any reason to disagree with the findings returned by Learned Single Judge, more particularly, taking into consideration the above noticed principle in T.T. Murali Babu (supra).

In result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.