Jharkhand High Court
Saryu Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 13 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2018 (1) AJR 401
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, D.N. Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 528 of 2016
with
I.A. No. 1152 of 2017
Saryu Paswan, son of Late Sibu Paswan, Resident of
Village- Rehua, P.O.. Nitwthu, P.S.- Atri ( Batani), Dist-
Gaya, Bihar, presently retired as Rail Dy. S.P.
Jamshedpur/Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.- Adityapur, Dist-
Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand
..........Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Building P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand
3. Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand
4. Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police,
Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand
6. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South
Chhotanagpur Range, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand --------Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
----------
For the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. Kumar Sundaram, J.C.to A.A.G.
----------
th 05/Dated: 13 July,2017 Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J. (Oral Judgment) I.A. No. 1152 of 2017
1. The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 08 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph no. 3 thereof, there 2 are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal No. 528 of 2016.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1152 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 528 of 20165. This Letters Patient Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose W.P.(S) No. 1489 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment and order dated 16th September,2016, whereby the punishment inflicted upon this appellant -delinquent of reduction to the lowest pay scale, for the grossest misconduct, which is at Annexure-1, is confirmed and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
6. FACTUAL MATRIX:
This appellant was serving as Sub Divisional Police Officer at Barhi, District Hazaribag.
Charge-sheet dated 15th May, 2009 was issued against this appellant, which is at Annexure-1. Charges are pertaining to the fact that this police officer had gone at the residence of one lady namely Aisha Khatoon with his Reader and Driver. Thereafter, threat was given to the said lady, assault was made and she was also kidnapped from Hazaribag and was taken to Jamshedpur and later on her clothes were taken away and she was thrown out. First Information Report was lodged under various sections of Indian Penal Code including Sections 452, 341,323,342,307,325,365, 379 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sessions Trial No. 581 of 2009 is going on in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.3
Charge sheet was filed mainly for the reason that by such type of behaviour of this police officer-appellant, the image of the police has been ruined in the eye of public at large. Dignity of the post has been lowered, because of the misconduct of the appellant and the act of this appellant is of moral turpitude, indiscipline, dereliction in duty and his misconduct was un becoming of a police officer. These are the charges against this appellant for which charge sheet was given which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.
Enquiry officer was appointed. Adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant and the enquiry officer has given his report dated 14th April, 2010, which is at Annexure-5 to the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Charges levelled against this appellant have been proved.
Second show cause notice for quantum of punishment has also been given vide show cause notice dated 12th July, 2010.
Disciplinary authority viz. Principle Secretary, Department of Home, State of Jharkhand has inflicted punishment vide order dated 17th August, 2010, which is at Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal , whereby this appellant was reduced to the lowest pay scale of his rank and in future he will not be given independent charge of the post and for suspension he will not be entitled to get any other allowances except subsistence allowance. Nonetheless, suspension period will not be treated as break in service.
This order of disciplinary authority was challenged in Departmental Appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 1.10.2011 by the Government of Jharkhand (Annexrue-9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).4
The writ petition was preferred by this appellant being W.P.(S) No. 1489 of 2012, wherein the quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant was under
challenge and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16th September, 2016 and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
7. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:
Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that under Rule 49 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1930, no such punishment has been prescribed, which is awarded by the disciplinary authority. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated at all by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, deserves to be quashed and set- aside.
It has further contended by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that for the same set of facts and allegations, Sessions Trial No. 581 of 2009 is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and, hence, till the trial is over, the departmental proceeding ought to have been stayed. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, also the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1489 of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set-aside. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that the entire service career record of this appellant has not been considered. In fact, this appellant has been recommended for Presidential Police Medal. This aspect of the matter has not been also 5 properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, also the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
Counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State Bank of India & Ors Vs. Neelam Nag & Another reported in (2016)9 SCC, 491 and on the basis of the aforesaid decision, it is submitted that if the civil and criminal charges are the same and the criminal trial is going on, the same ought to have been appreciated by the Government.
Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the punishment inflicted upon this appellant by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct alleged by the respondent and , hence, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
8. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-STATE(ORIGINAL RESPONDENT):
Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that looking to the grossest misconduct committed by this appellant for which charge sheet was given on 15th May, 2009 (Annexure-1), after giving adequate opportunity of being heard by enquiry officer , a report was given by him dated 14th April, 2010 (Annexure-5), whereby, the charges levelled against this appellant- delinquent have been proved for which second show cause notice dated 12th July, 2010 was given and ultimately, punishment was inflicted upon him by the Principle Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 17th August, 2010 6 (Annexure-7) and this appellant/delinquent was reduced to the lowest pay scale of the post of Sub Divisional Police Officer, against which departmental appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 1.10. 2011 (Annexure-9), which was challenged by way of writ petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge, appreciating all aspects of the matter including the grossest misconduct committed by this appellant.
Counsel for the respondent further submitted that looking to the charge sheet at Annexure-1, it was not befitting for the appellant being a Sub Divisional Police Officer to go at night hours, where lady Aisha Khatoon was staying and thereafter kidnapped her from Hazaribag to Jamshedpur, where assault was committed, her clothes were removed and she was thrown away. The charges levelled against him on a civil side, is to the effect that by the act of this appellant, image of the police has been ruined, dignity of the post has been reduced. There is also misconduct of moral turpitude also there is charge of indiscipline and dereliction of duty and whereby he was not befitting to hold the post. Thus, there is vast difference between criminal charges and civil charges and, hence, even if the criminal trial is going on, the departmental proceeding cannot be stayed, especially, in the facts of the present case. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent (original respondent) that Rule 49 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, does prescribe the punishment which is inflicted upon this appellant, even by prima-facie reading of the said Rule. Hence, no error has been committed by the Disciplinary 7 authority in awarding the punishment upon this appellant, especially, when the charges levelled against him are proved by enquiry officer report. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent -State that in the facts of the case, the quantum of punishment has been inflicted upon the appellant, is a bare minimum. Much leniency has been shown by the respondent-state because this appellant has reached to the age of superannuation on 31 st December, 2011, otherwise, such type of officers, especially when he is a police officer, should have been dismissed by the State and all retiral dues should have been forfeited. There could not have been more leniency than what is shown by the State for the charges leveleld against this appellant, which are proved and, hence, the quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate nor can it be labelled unreasonably excessive punishment, looking to the proved misconduct. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
9. R E A S O N S:
Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal, mainly for the following reasons;s
(i) This appellant ( original petitioner) was working as Sub Divisional Police Officer at Barhi in the district of Hazaribagh.
(ii) Misconduct committed by him on 06.05.2008 and in detail, the same has been narrated in the charge sheet dated 15th May, 2009, which is at 8 Annexure -1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, whereby, it appears that allegations levelled against him are that this appellant along with his Reader and Driver had gone, where a lady Aisha Khatoon was staying . Thereafter from Hazaribagh she was kidnapped and was taken to Jamshedpur, where she was beaten so severely that they thought that she has died and therefore, her clothes were removed and her body was thrown in a River. Later on, she could survive. As the criminal case is pending, we are not going in fine nicety of the further details of the allegation, suffice it to say that under various offences of Indian Penal Code including section 307 to be read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, offences were registered. The same was investigated, charge sheet was filed against this appellant and other accused persons and the case was committed as S.T. No. 581 of 2009 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.
(iii) On a civil side, the allegations levelled against this appellant are to the effect that because of misconduct committed by this appellant, the image of the police has been ruined in the eye of public at large. Dignity of the post has been lowered, because of the misconduct of the appellant and the act of this appellant is of moral turpitude, indiscipline, dereliction in duty and his misconduct was un becoming of a police officer.
(iv) Looking to the charge sheet, at Annexure- 1, it appears that the charges on criminal side and charges on civil side are different. Both can always go together, hence the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that when criminal trial is 9 going on, the departmental inquiry should have been stayed, is not accepted by this Court.
(v) Inquiry Officer was appointed, charges levelled against him have been proved as per inquiry officer report, which is dated 14th April, 2010 ( Annexure-
5), further opportunity of being heard was given by issuance of 2nd show cause notice dated 12th July, 2010 and thereafter disciplinary authority -Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Jharkhand has inflicted punishment vide order dated 17 th August, 2010 ( Annexure-7), whereby this appellant has been reduced to the lowest pay scale of the post, he was holding.
(vi) Thereafter, this appellant has preferred departmental appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 1st October, 2011 ( Annexure-9). Thus, adequate opportunity of being heard was given by the State to this Appellant.
(vii) There is no illegality in the procedure in holding the inquiry. The report given by the Inquiry Officer is based upon evidences on record. The departmental inquiry is legal and valid.
(viii) Once the departmental inquiry held as legal and valid, the only question left out to be adjudicated upon is the quantum of punishment.
Looking to the nature of misconduct of going by this appellant at the residence of lady Aisha Khatoon and to kidnap her from Hazaribagh and to bring her at Jamshedpur along with a Reader of the police station and the driver and thereafter assaulting upon her so severely that they all thought that she has expired and hence, after removing her clothes , she was thrown in a River, but, later on she survived. Looking to the charges levelled against 10 this appellant which are proved and looking to the quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant/delinquent by the disciplinary authority, which cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it can be said that the punishment inflicted upon this appellant is unreasonably excessive. On the contrary, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant, who is a police officer, working in a disciplined force, is much lessor. We could have approved even more punishment, if the same would have been inflicted upon him. We are not here for enhancing the quantum of punishment, but, suffice it to say that the punishment inflicted upon him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17th August, 2010 requires no interference by this Court. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1489 of 2012 preferred by this appellant.
(ix) Looking to the Rule 49 of Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant is already mentioned in the said Rule. For the ready reference, Rule 49 of the aforesaid rules reads as under:-
"49. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon members of the services comprised in any of the classes (1) to (5) specified in rule 14, namely:-
(i) Censure,
(ii) Withholding of increments of promotion including stopage at an efficiency bar,
(iii) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale , or to a lower stage in a time-scale.
(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of 11 any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders.
[ (iv-a) Compulsory retirement.]
(v) Suspension,
(vi) Removal from the civil service of the Crown, which does not disqualify from future employment.
(vii) Dismissal from the civil service of the Crown, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment;
Explanation 1.-The discharge-
(a) of a person appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of probation, on ground arising out of the specific conditions laid down by the appointing authority e.g.. want of a vacancy, failure to acquire prescribed special qualifications or to pass prescribed test,
(b) of a person appointed otherwise than under contract to hold a temporary appointment, on the expiration of the period of the appointment,
(c) of a person engaged under contract, in accordance with the terms of his contract.
does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule.
Explanation II.- The discharge of a probationer, whether during or at the end of the period of probation for some specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the services, amounts to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule.
[Explanation III- Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement does not amount to penalty within the meaning of this rule."
(Emphasis Supplied)
(x) In view of the aforesaid Rule-49 (iii), the punishment inflicted upon this appellant can always be inflicted upon the employees, looking to the nature of misconduct. Thus, the argument 12 canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment inflicted upon this appellant dehors the Rule 49, is not accepted by this Court.
(xi) Counsel for the appellant also submitted that as S.T. No. 581 of 2009 is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, the departmental inquiry ought not to have been further proceeded. We are not accepting this argument mainly for the reasons that :
(a) The charges levelled against this appellant on criminal side and on civil side are different
(b) On criminal side, the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, in departmental inquiry, the charges levellved against the delinquent are to be proved on preponderance on probability.
(xii) It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 at Paragraph Nos. 13,22 & 35 thereof which reads as under:
13. As we shall presently see, there is a consensus of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer to in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiously referred to, on the basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case.
While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little 13 exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance.
22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.
(Emphasis Supplied)
(xiii) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 442 at Paragraph nos. 10 & 14 thereof which reads as under:
10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment also lays down that the stay of 14 departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course.
14. We are of the opinion that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on an erroneous legal principle without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and proceeded as if the stay of disciplinary proceedings is a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges, in this background it is not necessary for us to go into the second question whether at least Charge 3 by itself could have been permitted to be decided in the departmental enquiry as contended alternatively by the learned counsel for the appellant.
(Emphasis Supplied)
(xiv) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 thereof which reads as under:
7. It is a fairly well-settled position in law that on basic principles, proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except in some cases where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. It is in these cases, the court has to decide, taking into account the special features of the case, whether simultaneous continuance of both would be proper.
8. The purposes of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So, crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined 15 under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.
(Emphasis Supplied)
(xv) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 385 at paragraph Nos. 13 &16 thereof as under:
13. There can be no straitjacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending.
16. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue.
(Emphasis Supplied) (xvi) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. P. Ganesan, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 650 at Paragraph Nos. 23 & 24 thereof as under:
23. The High Court, unfortunately, although it noticed some of the binding precedents of the Court failed to apply the law in its proper perspective. The High Court was not correct in its view in concluding that the stay of the departmental proceedings should be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case without analysing and applying the principle of law evolved in the aforementioned decisions. It, therefore, misdirected itself in law. What was necessary to be noticed by the High Court was not only existence of identical facts and the evidence in the matter, it was also required to take into consideration the question as to whether the charges levelled against the delinquent officers, both in the criminal case as also the in disciplinary proceedings, were same. Furthermore it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to arrive at a finding that the non-
stay of the disciplinary proceedings shall not only prejudice the delinquent officers but the matter also involves a complicated question of law.
24. The standard of proof in a disciplinary proceedings and 16 that in a criminal trial is different. If there are additional charges against the delinquent officers including the charges of damaging the property belonging to the Bank which was not the subject-matter of allegations in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not have been stayed.
(Emphasis Supplied) In view of the aforesaid decisions, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition service being W.P.(S) No. 1489 of 2012.
(xvii) Looking to the nature of charges on civil side and on criminal side, they are different and hence, there was no need to stay the departmental proceeding.
(xviii) Counsel for the appellant has submitted the entire service career record has not been properly appreciated. This contention is devoid of any merit for the following reasons;-
(a) The quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant, despite the grossest misconduct is a much lenient view and the government must have appreciated the entire service career record, otherwise for such type of proved misconduct, even more punishment could have been inflicted upon this delinquent, which can go up to dismissal. Thus, the much lenient view has been taken, looking to the several other aspects, including, the entire service career record of this appellant,
(b) Even if, we look to the entire service career record of this appellant, we do not want to reduce the quantum of punishment, because, it is minimum punishment inflicted upon this appellant. Looking to the nature of misconduct, no further lenient view is required to be taken, even with the best service career.
1710. Looking to the charges levelled against this appellant factual background, as stated in Annexure- 1 and looking to the quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant, we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1489 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 16th September, 2016. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is hereby, dismissed.
( D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) ( Ratnaker Bhengra,J.) Sharda/ Nibha A.F.R.