Shesh Nath Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6697 Cal

    5                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
19.09.2022

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION cm Ct25 APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 4053 of 2009

Shesh Nath Pandey Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Akash Dutta ... For the petitioner.

Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee ... For Union of India

The petitioner has challenged the revisional order

dated January 9, 2009 of the Inspector General of

Police, Eastern Sector, CRPF, Calcutta in this writ

petition.

The petitioner while performing his duty as a

constable (General Duty) was charged for committing

disobedience of orders/neglect of duty/remissness in

discharge of duty/an act of misconduct or misbehavior

in his capacity as a Member of the force and he was also

charged for using filthy/abusive languages against

senior officers and supervisory staff of the unit. A

departmental enquiry was conducted against the

petitioner and upon completion of the departmental

enquiry the disciplinary authority inflicted a punishment

of compulsory retirement from service with effect from

September 10, 2007 by an order dated September 8,

2007.

Being aggrieved against the said order of the

disciplinary authority the writ petitioner preferred an

appeal which stood rejected by the appellate authority

by an order dated February 9, 2008. The petitioner has

challenged the appellate order dated February 9, 2008

by filing a writ petition being WP No. 22128 (W) of 2008

before this Hon'ble Court. A coordinate Bench of this

Court by order dated September, 11, 2008 granted

liberty to the petitioner to submit an application for

review of the order of the appellate authority as per Rule

29 of the Central Reserved Police Force Act, 1955 (for

short 1955 Rules). Pursuant to the said order, the writ

petitioner submitted a petition for review of the appellate

order which stood rejected by the order dated January 9,

2009 of the revisional authority. The petitioner has

challenged the order passed by the revisional authority

by this writ petition.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that revisional authority while rejecting the

petition for revision failed to appreciate that the charges

leveled against the petitioner has not been proved and

the punishment awarded to the petitioner is

disproportionate to the charges. He relied upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

S.K. Giri Vs. Home Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs & Ors. reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 519 and a

coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of

Bhabatosh Chandra Das Vs. United Bank of India &

Ors. reported at (2011) 1 CHN 612 .

The learned advocate appearing for the Union of

India submits that the scope of judicial review against

the order passed by the revisional authority is very

limited and considering the gravity of the charges it

cannot be said that the punishment inflicted upon the

petitioner is disproportionate to the charges proved. He

placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs.

G. Ganayutham judgment passed on 27th August, 1997

in support of his contention that this court can only go

into the matter, as a secondary reviewing Court to find

out if the executive in their primary roles have arrived at

a reasonable decision and the Court cannot substitute

its own views on the reasonableness of punishment.

Heard the learned advocates for the parties and

perused the materials placed.

After going through the order of the revisional

authority order dated January 9, 2009 this Court finds

that such authority after taking into consideration the

grounds taken in the revision petition arrived at a

finding that the punishment awarded to the petitioner

cannot be said to be disproportionate. It was further

observed by the revisional authority that the disciplinary

authority after considering all materials on record and

also taking into account his long service awarded the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service with

admissible pensionary benefits which is commensurate

with the gravity of offence in order to keep discipline in

the force.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of G.

Ganayutham (Supra) held that the role of the Court is

purely secondary and while applying the Wednesbury

principle to test the validity of executive action or

administrative action taken in exercise of statutory

powers the Courts can only go into the matter as a

secondary reviewing court to find out if the executive in

their primary roles have arrived at the reasonable

decision on the material before them in the light of

Wednesbury test. It was further held therein that the

choice of the options available is for the authority and

the court cannot substitute its view as to what is

reasonable.

The revisional authority took into consideration

the materials on record and assigned cogent reasons in

support of the conclusion. The punishment to be

inflicted falls within the exclusive domain of the

authority and this Court cannot substitute its views on

the nature of punishment as held in G. Ganayutham

(Supra).

This Court, therefore, holds that the decision of

the revisional authority does not suffer from infirmity

warranting interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Giri (supra)

took into consideration the fact that the appellant

therein had gone to convey the message to the higher

authorities and to make a report of the incident which

led to a short period of absence. The Honble Supreme

Court after taking note of the reasons for such short

period of absence held that the penalty of removal from

service was severe and disproportionate to the charge

proved and the punishment awarded was accordingly

set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said

decision has no manner of application to the facts of the

case on hand.

In Bhabatosh Chandra Das (Supra) the

coordinate Bench substituted the penalty of removal

from service with that of compulsory retirement. In the

case on hand the petitioner was awarded the penalty of

compulsory retirement and not removal from service and

for such reason the decision in the case of Bhabatosh

Chandra Das (Supra) is of no assistance to the

petitioner in this case.

For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the order of the revisional

authority dated January 9, 2009.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be

supplied to the parties, if applied for.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)