Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Ram Kumar Thakur

Aftab H. Saikia, C.J.—Heard Mr. K.K. Pangotra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the appellants and Mrs. Surinder Kour,

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.

Judgment and Order dated 25.5.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1953/2000 is under challenge in this Letters Patent

Appeal.

In the instant case, departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent while working as a Constable with Central Industrial Security Force

on the charge to the effect that he was quarrelling with one Constable R. Gunasekharan on 24.7.1999 at about 18.50 hours by exchanging

arguments and hitting the said Constable, which amounted to gross indiscipline and misconduct rendering him unbecoming of a member of Armed

Force.

Having found the charge proved against the respondent, the Disciplinary authority by order dated 22.5.2000 imposed penalty of dismissal from

service on the respondent with immediate effect.

The dismissal order was challenged by the respondent in the instant writ petition on the ground that there was no sufficient material and evidence

to hold the charge proved and finding of guilt, being based on no evidence, could not be made the basis for imposing the major punishment of

dismissal from service upon the respondent.

The writ Court having considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and on close perusal of records, allowed the writ petition

vide judgment and order dated 25.5.2004 and order of dismissal dated 22.5.2000 was accordingly quashed with a direction to the official

appellants to reinstate the respondent.

The primary contention on behalf of Union of India is that as a writ Court, learned Single Judge ought not to have appreciated the evidence like

the appellate Court, so as to give relief to the respondent. The limited argument of Mr. Pangotra, learned Counsel for the appellants is that the

learned Judge while disposing of the writ petition has appreciated the evidence of the witnesses including Gunasekharan, with whom it is alleged

that the respondent herein had a quarrel for which the respondent was dismissed from service for his gross indiscipline and misconduct. According

to him, the High Court has limited jurisdiction in exercising the power of judicial review against the departmental inquiry decision being held on facts

after conducting a proper inquiry and such finding of facts could not be disturbed and re-appreciated in a writ proceeding.

Supporting the impugned judgment by which the dismissal order dated 22.5.2000 was quashed by the learned Single Judge, Mrs. Kour has

submitted that since the perversity is writ large on the face of record, the writ Court has the jurisdiction to re-appreciate the finding on facts. In the

instant case, the only allegation was that the respondent had quarrelled with one Gunasekharan. However, during the departmental inquiry, the said

person categorically deposed that the respondent did not quarrel with him and they were simply cutting jokes. The learned Judge having taken into

consideration the said fact situation, quashed the impugned order and as such the impugned judgment and order need not be disturbed.

We have meticulously perused the impugned judgment and the record so produced before us. Having thoroughly scrutinized the entire record

and after hearing the parties, it is seen that the material evidence in the instant case was primarily that of Constable Gunasekharan, who did not

support the charge levelled against the respondent. Situated thus, it could not be held that there was a quarrel between the respondent and

Gunasekharan, merely on the basis of other witnesses, who alleged to have witnessed the incident.

In such premises, the finding arrived at by the Inquiry officer so appointed to conduct the departmental inquiry against the respondent appears

to be perverse and based upon no evidence which is permissible to be interfered with by the writ Court in exercise of the power of judicial review

against the department inquiry decision.

Having observed above, we are of the view that no case for interference with the impugned judgment has been made out in the instant appeal

and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.