Patna High Court
Khurshid Alam vs The Union Of India on 8 August, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1614 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5347 of 2016
======================================================
Khurshid Alam Son of Md. Shabir Ansari, Resident of Village-Akil Tola,
P.O.-Kasdeora Bangra, P.S.-Maharajganj, District-Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Block No.
1, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. The Inspector General (IG), Central Range, Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF), Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (UP).
4. The Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Amethi Range, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (UP).
5. The Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Group Kendra, Amethi Range, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (UP).
6. The Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Group Kendra, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.D. Sanjay (Adsg)
For the Union of India : Mr. Bindhyahal Rai
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 08-08-2024
The Appellant has assailed the order of the learned
single Judge dated 07.11.2019 passed in C.W.J.C No. 5347
of 2016. The Appellant while working as a Constable in
Company Commandant of 214 battalion of the CRPF. He
remained unauthorized absence for about 572 days. During
the intervening period, disciplinary authority made various
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1614 of 2019 dt.08-08-2024
communication and all necessary endeavour to secure the
appellant. He could not secure the Appellant, resultantly, ex-
parte inquiry has been held for remaining unauthorized
absence for about 572 days. Appellant was working in a
disciplinary force like CRPF, he cannot just walk away
from the office without informing his employer. Learned
counsel for the Appellant submitted that appellant was
suffering from certain ailment and he was taking treatment
including disease of Hepatitis- B. In this regard, the
Appellant could not apprise this Court to the extent that
Doctor has advised him for bed rest for a particular period
so as to draw inference that it was beyond the control of the
Appellant in attending the office or in not responding to the
various communication of the respondents.
2. In view of the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, Respondent authority proceeded to pass
order of removal and it has been affirmed by the learned
single Judge. That apart, scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution is limited, in this regard
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. P.
Gunasekaran reported in 2015 (2) SCC 610, in para nos. 12
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1614 of 2019 dt.08-08-2024
and 13, it is held as under.
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is
painfully disturbing to note that the High
Court has acted as an appellate authority in
the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating
even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In
disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is
not and cannot act as a second court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its
powers under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves
from reaching a fair conclusion by some
considerations extraneous to the evidence and
merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to
be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1614 of 2019 dt.08-08-2024
considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so
wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived at
such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
failed to admit the admissible and material
evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which
influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court shall
not:
(i) reappreciate 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.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1614 of 2019 dt.08-08-2024
3. Taking note of scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of domestic
inquiry /departmental inquiry, the appellant has not made
out a case so as to interfere with the removal order and
consequential orders including order of the learned single
dated 07.11.2019 passed in C.W.J.C No. 5347 of 2016.
4. Accordingly, LPA stands dismissed.
5. Pending I.A.(s), if any , stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
vashudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.08.2024
Transmission Date NA
