Manoj Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India Through Inspector ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3421 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
                            L.P.A No. 84 of 2015
Manoj Kumar Pandey, s/o Late Pramod Prasad Pandey, r/o Village-Fulbaria,
PO & PS-Jagdishpur, District-Bhagalpur                  ...... Appellant
                             Versus
1. Union of India through Inspector General, Central Industrial Security
Force, CISF Complex, Khargarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, PO & PS-
Kharghar, District-Mumbai
2. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, CISF Complex,
Khargarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, PO & PS-Kharghar, District-
Mumbai
3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of
Home Affair, PO & PS-Hyderabad, Hyderabad-62.
4. Senior Commandant, Disciplinary Authority, Central Industrial Security
Force Unit, UCIL, Jadugoda, PO & PS-Jadugoda, Dist-East Singhbhum
                                                        ....... Respondents

                                 ---------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant        : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate
For the UOI              : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, CGC

                               ---------------
                                   ORDER

th 29 August 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The writ petitioner who is the appellant before us failed in his attempt before the writ Court to assail legality of the order of compulsory retirement which was passed against him in a departmental proceeding.

2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 16th December 2014 passed in W.P(S) No.3498 of 2010 on the ground that the writ Court did not advert to the issues germane to examining legality of the order of compulsory retirement dated 9th September 2009 passed by the Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, UCIL, Jadugora.

3. The plea urged on behalf of the appellant is that every act of a government employee committed beyond duty hours shall not attract any imputation of misconduct.

4. Mr. D.C. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the misconduct imputed to the appellant is that at 11:50 PM on 31 st May 2009 he started abusing senior officers in a drunken state but the witnesses of the locality particularly from the same block of houses were not examined by the department to support the aforesaid misconduct committed by the appellant.

5. There is no complain by the appellant that the departmental enquiry which was conducted against him on the basis of charge-memorandum dated 2nd June 2009 was conducted in breach of conduct rules. The appellant was offered an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department and as would appear from the enquiry report he availed such opportunity. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to him vide letter dated 18th August 2009 by which he was offered an opportunity to make his representation against the report. In the aforesaid background, we find that the departmental enquiry was conducted following the rules of natural justice. The disciplinary authority considered the defence put forth by the appellant and passed an elaborate order why the punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity should be awarded to him.

6. In a properly constituted departmental enquiry in which no complain about breach of the rules of natural justice is made, the findings of fact recorded by the departmental authority is not open to challenge in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The powers of judicial review of the orders passed by the departmental authority is very limited in a writ jurisdiction and except in cases which fall under the aforesaid categories or the well known parameters of Wednesbury principle (the doctrine of proportionality) the order passed by the departmental authority are almost immune from interference by the writ Court.

7. In "B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India" (1995) 6 SCC 749 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,

it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

8. In "Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh" (2013) 12 SCC 372 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary authorities which alone can take a decision on quantum of punishment.

9. The writ Court has observed that the appellant was granted an opportunity of hearing and the charge of abusing senior officers in drunken state was found proved. We see no reason for any disagreement with the decision of the writ Court. As many as six witnesses were examined by the department to prove the charge against the appellant. The appellant, who took a defence that while returning from market he was attacked by A.K. Swai and Satpal Singh, they chased him till he locked himself in his quarter and hurled filthy abuses upon him, could not elicit anything material from the witnesses which could have thrown a doubt on the charge levelled against him or probablised the defence set up by him. The appellate authority has considered his defence in more than a satisfactory manner. The plea set up by him that witnesses of the locality were not examined by the department may be true but then the appellant also could have produced his neighbours in his defence which step he did not take. The enquiring officer has recorded that he refused to submit any written defence and agreed for closure of the enquiry after his statement was recorded.

10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State Bank of Hyderabad & Another v. P. Kata Rao" (2008) 15 SCC 657 to hold the order of punishment valid.

11. In "P. Kata Rao" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment........

19. We are not unmindful of different principles laid down by this Court from time to time. The approach that the court's jurisdiction is unlimited although had not found favour with some Benches, the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality, however, had not been deviated from."

12. In this context, we may also refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Union of India v. M. Duraisamy" (2022) 7 SCC 475 and "Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. SSB" 2022 SCC OnLine SC 478 to hold that the charge of abusing superior officers in drunken state invites the harshest punishment.

13. Lastly, Mr. D.C. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us to take a different view with reference to an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No. 10319 of 2004 title "Ex. Const. Ram Kumar v. UOI and Anr.". On a glance at the facts in the said case would disclose that there is no similarity on facts or commonness of issues in both the cases. In the present case, the witnesses stated that the appellant from his actions appeared drunk and one of the witnesses (PW1) stated that on being asked the appellant refused to undergo medical test.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no error in the decisions of the departmental authorities which were rightly affirmed by the writ Court.

15. In the result, L.P.A No. 84 of 2015 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 29th August 2022 sudhir/N.A.F.R.