J.K. Sharma vs Union of India and Others

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.—This appeal under Letter Patent is directed against the impugned judgment dated 9.2.1996 dismissing the appellant''s writ petition against an order of his removal from service.

The appellant, formerly a Deputy Manager, was charged of tampering with quotations submitted by the supplier and over-payment made to the firm by the appellant against the terms and conditions of the purchased order and also for acceptance of sub-standard and poor quality of the Tarpaulins received by him from the firm. An enquiry was conducted departmentally and the enquiry officer submitted her report on 4.6.1983 holding Charge No. 1 as proved and Charge No.2 pertaining to sub standard and poor quality of Tarpaulins as partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the said enquiry report together with the relevant documents agreed with the finding in respect of Charge No.1 but did not agree with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.2. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to the appellant on 28.10.1983 recording tentative reasons for disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the Charge No.2 and also intimating his agreement with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.1 asking him to show cause as to why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him. On consideration of the reply submitted by the appellant the Disciplinary Authority passed an order removing the appellant from service. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of removal. The learned Single Judge, while concurring with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority that charges leveled against the appellants were proved, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by that, this appeal is filed by the appellant.

The appellant''s only grievance is that the punishment awarded to the appellant did not commensurate with the gravity of charges leveled against him. It is well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the Courts shall not normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the competent authorities. In State Bank of India and Others Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and Another, , the Apex Court has held that imposition of proper punishment is within the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority.

As noticed earlier, the writ court has concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority that the charges against the appellant have been proved and we are not inclined to take a contrary view. It would not be appropriate to minimise the gravity of the appellant''s mis-conduct for which the respondent thought fit to impose maximum punishment of removal from service. In this view of the matter. it would not be appropriate to interfere with the punishment awarded to the appellant. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show or suggest that the punishment awarded to the appellant did not commensurate with the gravity of the charges found proved against him. Thus in our opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.