AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India.
The Writ Application of the appellant was considered
by the learned Single Judge in detail and he refused to interfere with
the order of punishment of withholding one increment for a period of
three years and non-payment of salary for the period of suspension.
The Writ Application was dismissed because no infirmity was found
by the learned Single Judge either in the process or the procedure
adopted in the departmental proceedings and since the finding with
regard to Charge No. 3 was against the petitioner, the punishment in
question came to be imposed.
This bench is also in agreement with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge that once the process of enquiry has been
followed and finding of fact has been recorded, it is not open for a
court of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in
judicial review and reappraise the evidence to come to a conclusion.
The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that
though the order of revision was rejected on 09.02.2011, the appellant
waited till 2015 to assail the order of punishment. Such delay was also
not satisfactorily explained but still, despite the above fact, the learned
Single Judge bailed the appellant out by observing that the non-duty
period of 606 days, for which no salary was required to be paid, will
not be treated as a break in service and will be computed for the
purpose of calculation of retirement benefits.
In a disciplined force which the petitioner has been
serving, the aberrations which have been talked about based on the
charges, the Court can only opine that he got away very lightly,
whatever be the reasons and consideration. The conduct of the
appellant was such which could have cost his employment or
continuance in the organization as such. He cannot be expected to
behave like a common citizen or holder of a civil post in a
government office.
No infirmity arises with the impugned order dated
17.04.2015 of the learned Single Judge.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.