Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043231
RSA-3416-2012 2024:PHHC:043231 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(212) RSA-3416-2012
Date of Decision : April 01st, 2024
Satnam Singh .. Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Ganga, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgments and
decrees of the Courts below by which, the suit filed by the appellant-
plaintiff challenging the imposition of punishment dated 23.05.2006, has
been dismissed, which judgment and decree of the trial Court has been
upheld by the lower Appellate Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in the present
case, no embezzlement has taken place but the only allegation was that the
appellant-plaintiff tried to embezzle the amount hence, once there is no
embezzlement, the award of punishment of stoppage of two increment with
cumulative effect, is arbitrary and illegal, which fact has been ignored by
the Courts below so as to dismiss the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.
3. Learned State counsel submits that against the appellant-
plaintiff, a due enquiry was held and in the enquiry, it has already come on
record that the appellant-plaintiff was trying to sell the used tickets to the
passengers so as to embezzle the amount and the said allegations have
already been proved in the departmental enquiry hence, the imposition of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043231
punishment on the appellant-plaintiff is perfectly valid and legal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. The factum that prior to the imposition of punishment, the
departmental enquiry was held against the appellant-plaintiff wherein, the
allegations were proved, is a conceded fact. Once, in the departmental
enquiry, the allegations alleged against the appellant-plaintiff have been
proved, the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the punishing
authority. The Courts are only to ensure that the procedure envisaged under
the Rules for conducting the departmental proceedings are followed. It is a
settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No.17-18 of 2021 titled as Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) and others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, decided on
05.01.2021 wherein, it was held that power of judicial review of the
constitutional Courts is an evaluation of decision making process and not
the merits of the decision itself. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-
" 25. 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043231
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.
29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of
judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the
Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a
case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence
to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man
acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at
that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support
the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the
same has to be sustained."
6. In the present appeal, no such argument has been raised that the
procedure followed before imposition of punishment was faulty or contrary
to the provisions applicable for the said purpose. In the absence of any such
allegation, merely that the allegation alleged against the appellant-plaintiff
was that he was trying to embezzle and the embezzlement has not taken
place, will not exonerate of the allegations which stood proved in the
departmental enquiry.
7. No other argument was raised.
8. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the orders
passed by the Courts below could be pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellant, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in
the present case.
9. Dismissed.
April 01st, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
