Gyanendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.

The Petitioner, a Constable in P.A.C., remained absent unauthorizedly for 53 days pursuant whereto departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The charges were found proved. An order of dismissal was passed on 09.08.2000. Petitioner''s appeal was rejected on 22.11.2000 and revision was dismissed on 22.01.2001, whereupon he preferred Writ Petition No. 9182 of 2001. The writ petition was decided by judgment dated 12.02.2006 whereby this Court partly allowed the writ petition setting aside the appellate and revisional order on the ground that the points raised by Petitioner in his appeal and revision were not considered by authorities concerned hence the appellate and revisional orders were non speaking. The matter was remanded to appellate authority whereupon the appellate authority has now passed order dated 29.03.2006 rejecting his appeal.

Three aspects appears to have been raised before the appellate authority.

Firstly, the absence was wrongly shown since the Platoon Commander was biased and had not granted leave to Petitioner without any just and valid reason though Petitioner met him praying for leave since his wife was ill. This defence was not accepted by observing if the Platton Commander was acting otherwise it was always open to the Petitioner to approach the higher authorities, i.e., Assistant Commander or Commander. He could have requested them for grant of leave but he did not avail that opportunity and never approached higher authorities. Instead he absented unauthorizedly, deserting P.A.C. camp.

His further submission that he had not left the P.A.C. camp has also been negatived by recording a finding of fact that after his return from unauthorized leave his arrival has been noticed at P.A.C Headquarter.

The next submission that he was not given any show cause notice or opportunity during inquiry has been disbelieved on the basis of material on record showing that the notices pertaining to inquiry were sent at his permanent address through special messenger but Petitioner was not present there and his family members refused to accept notice, hence, the notice was pasted at his residence. This fact was laos mentioned in the general diary of Police Station Bidhuna. The Petitioner failed to give any evidence to contradict the same.

Lastly on the matter of quantum of punishment a detailed discussion has been made and pages 90 and 91 of the writ petition show that the appellate authority has considered the entire aspect at length. The appellate authority found that punishment imposed upon Petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge found proved against Petitioner.

The revisional authority agreeing with the appellate authority has also passed a detailed order running in about 10 pages, i.e., from page 93 to 102 of the writ petition, and rejected revision of Petitioner on 11.07.2006.

No error in decision making process has been shown.

In the matter of departmental proceedings this Court cannot interfere like sitting in appeal and examine the matter like an appellate authority. The scope of judicial review and interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings has been examined in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. 2006 (2) ESC 1153, and after considering a catena of decisions on the subject, this Court has crystallized the aspects which can be examined by the Court and which may justify judicial interference and not otherwise, which are reproduced as under:

(1) The Tribunal exercising quasi judicial functions neither bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor bound by the strict rules of evidence.

(2) They may obtain all information material for the points under enquiry and act upon the same provided it is brought to the notice of the party and fair opportunity is afforded to explain.

(3) The judicial enquiry is to determine whether the authority holding enquiry is competent, and whether the procedure prescribed is in accordance with the principle of natural justice.

(4) There should exist some evidence accepted by the competent authority which may reasonably support the contention about the guilt of the officer. Adequacy or reliability of the evidence can not be looked into by the Court.

(5) The departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before theCourt.

(6) There is no allergy to hearse evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.

(7) The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice.

(8) It is not necessary that the Disciplinary authority should discuss material in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Office.

(9) The judicial review is extended only when there is no evidence or the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached on the basis of the material available.

In this case I am clearly of the view that none of such factors exists. The decision of authorities concerned cannot be said perverse or based or on no evidence. Since the charges leveled against the Petitioner are found proved, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

No other point has been argued.

The writ petition therefore lacks merit. Dismissed.

No order as to costs.