Chattisgarh High Court
Satyam Mahapatra vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5771 of 2021
Order reserved on 10/06/2025
Order delivered on 04/09/2025
1 - Satyam Mahapatra S/o Late Bhakt Prasad Mahapatra, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ranisagar, Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi
2 - Office Of Inspector General, Central Reserve Police, Force North Sector,
CRPF, Block No 8, Wing 2, RK Puram, New Delhi
3 - Office Of Deputy Inspector General Central Reserve Police Force, CRPF,
RK Puram, New Delhi
4 - Office Of Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force CRPF 223
Battalion, Dornapal, District Sukma Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/UOI : Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order
1. The petitioner has challenged removal from his service and claimed reinstatement with all consequential benefits and filed the present writ VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN petition claiming the following reliefs:- Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.04 18:56:41 +0530 2
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate direction and call for entire records pertaining to the case.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders Annexure P/1 dated 18.6.2021 Annexure P/2 dated 4.12.2020 and Annexure P/3 dated 20.6.2018.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to direct the respondents authorities directing them to reinstate the petitioner back in services with all the consequential benefits of back wages, seniority continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
10.4 Any other relief as may be directed by the Hon'ble court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioner was a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted at 233 Battalion. He was sent for his own treatment at 65 Btn. CRPF, Raipur on 12.07.2017, but he did not report there and remained absent from duty without permission of the competent authority. Due to his unauthorized absence from duty, a complaint was lodged on 31.08.2017. Based on the complaint, a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 05.09.2017 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant 223 Btn. CRPF, Kamapedaguda, Dornapal, Sukma. Considering his unauthorized absence under sub-rule 31(C) of CRPF Rules, 1955, the petitioner was declared a deserter vide order dated 25.01.2018. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated on 16.02.2018 as provided under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. After unauthorized absent from duty for 223 days, the petitioner appeared on 20.02.2018 (AN), and the warrant of arrest issued against him was cancelled by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21.02.2018. In the departmental enquiry, the charges of 3 Article-I and II were found proved; however, the charge of Article-III was found not proved. Thereafter, the order of punishment of removal from service was issued on 20.06.2018. The order of removal from service was challenged by the petitioner by filing the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 04.12.2020 (Annexure P/2), and the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the order dated 18.06.2021, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, during the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to defend his case and to cross-examine the witnesses. Even the documents have not been provided to the petitioner. Mere absence from duty is not sufficient to pass the major penalty of removal from service. The absence from duty was not willful and was under compelling circumstances, and it cannot be considered a willful or deliberate absence from duty, and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same. He would also submit that the petitioner has made his application for the supply of the documents under the RTI Act, but the same has also been rejected by saying that the copies of the documents have already been supplied to the petitioner and the same cannot again be supplied. He would further submit that there is a procedure prescribed for conducting the departmental enquiry under the CRPF Rules, but the same has not been followed. The departmental appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner have been decided mechanically without considering the grievance of the petitioner; therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside/quashed and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service 4 with all consequential benefits.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose and submit that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2013 to the post of Constable in CRPF and after completion of his basic training, he was reported in 223 Btn. on 16.11.2014. The petitioner was sent for self-treatment at 65 Btn. CRPF, Raipur on 12.07.2017, but he did not report there and remained absent from 13.07.2017 (FN) without permission of the competent authority. A complaint was also lodged by the Adjutant Br. 223 Bn. on 31.08.2017, and based on the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Commandant, 223 Btn. issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner on 05.09.2017. Vide order dated 25.01.2018, the petitioner was declared deserter, and thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated vide office memorandum dated 16.02.2018. Since the petitioner did not appear, the copy of the memorandum of charges of Annexure-I, II and III, along with documents, list of witnesses (Annexure-IV) were sent to the petitioner to his home address by registered post on 16.02.2018. On 20.02.2018 (AN), the petitioner reported himself for defence before 223 Btn. Headquarter, Dornapal, Sukma (C.G.), after total unauthorized absence from duty of 223 days. He was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Commandant, 223 Btn. on 21.02.2018, and the warrant of arrest issued against him was cancelled. During the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to have a defence assistance, but he refused to accept any defence assistance. He was also produced before the inquiry officer for cross-examination of the 5 witnesses and to defend himself, and he was asked to produce evidence in support of his defence, but he failed to produce any document/evidence, etc. in his defence. After giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, 223 Btn., who found the Article-I and II of the charges proved against the petitioner and Article-III is not proved, and has passed an order of punishment of removal from service against the petitioner on 20.06.2018. The petitioner had challenged the departmental appeal as well as revision before the appellate authority and revisional authority, and his appeal and revision have also been dismissed vide orders dated 04.12.2020 and 18.06.2021, respectively. He would also submit that the copies of all the documents have been duly provided to the petitioner and sufficient opportunity was provided to him in the departmental enquiry proceeding. The petitioner not only disregarded the orders given by the competent authority, but also not follow the instructions given by the office. The absence from duty without any sanctioned leave or permission clearly indicates that the individual, while performing duties in the SOZ area, disobeyed the lawful orders of disciplined force and thereby the punishment imposed by the authorities is justified. After due application of mind, his appeal and revision have been dismissed. The order of punishment is rightly commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 6 available in the petition filed by both parties.
6. The submission of the petitioner is that he has not been provided a proper opportunity of hearing, and to defend his case in the departmental enquiry proceeding, he was not supplied the documents and not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. On 05.09.2022 and 17.03.2025, the respondents were directed to make available the record of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for its perusal. During the course of the hearing, the respondents produced the attested copy of the record of departmental enquiry against the petitioner for its perusal. In the chart prepared by the authority, which is named as Dainik Karyawahi Vivran, the details of the proceedings of the date of hearing have been summarised, in which the signature of the petitioner is also there on the dates, on which he appeared in the departmental enquiry proceedings, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
// दैनिक कार्यावाही विवरण // दिनांक व दैनिक कार्यवाही का विवरण अभियोजन पक्ष आरोपित प्रस्तुत जाँच स्थान के गवाह का कर्मचारी का अधिकारी का अधिकारी हस्ताक्षर हस्ताक्षर हस्ताक्षर के हस्ताक्षर 10/03/18 बल सं० 135324015 सिपाही/बिगु० सत्यम महायात्रा x Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
के विरुद्ध विभागीय जाँच हेतु श्री सुशील कु मार शर्मा को 223 बटा के कार्यालय आदेश सं० पी०आत-
02/2018-223-स्था०दो दिनांक 10 मार्च 2018 के तहत जाँच अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया।
16/03/18 बल सं० 135324015 सिपाही/बिगु० सत्यम महापात्रा x x Sd/- Sd/-
को जाँच अधिकारी के समक्ष उपस्थित होने हेतु बेतार संदेश सं० -01/18-223 दिनांक 16/03/18 के तहत 223 बटा० में संदेश भेजा गया ।
22/03/18 बल सं० 135324015 सिपाही/बिगु० सत्यम महापात्रा x x Sd/-
को जाँध अधिकारी के समक्ष उपस्थित होकर अपने 7 बचाव पक्ष में लिखित प्रतिवेदन या बयान देने के लिये पत्र सं० जी०दो -01/2018-223-सुशील कु ० शर्मा दिनांक 22/03/18 के तहत पत्राचार ।
26/03/18 बल सं० 135324015 सिपाही/बिगु० सत्यम महापात्रा x Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
की प्राथमिक सुनवाई की कार्यवाही किया गया।
28/03/18 बल सं० 135324015 सिपाही/ बिगु० सत्यम महापात्रा x Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
द्वारा आरोप स्वीकार करने अथवा नहीं करने के संबंध में सुनवाई की कार्यवाही ।
29/03/18 बल संख्या 850030168 सउनि / जीडी राजेन्द्र कु मार Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
सी०एच०एम० सी/223बटा का ब्यान एवं प्रश्नोत्तर तथा आरोपी के द्वारा द्वारा बल सं० 850030168 सउनि जीडी राजेन्द्र कु मार सी०एच०एम० सी/223 बटा से किया गया जिरह की कार्यवाही । प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा बल संख्या 850030168 सउनि/जीडी राजेन्द्र कु मार से पुछे गये प्रश्नोत्तर।
30/03/18 बल संख्या 041546275 सिपाही/ जीडी हरीश Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
हरीतवाल कम्पनी लिपिक सी/223 बटा का ब्यान एवं प्रश्नोतर तथा आरोपी के द्वारा बल संख्या 041546275 सिपाही/जीडी हरीश हरीतवाल कम्पनी लिपिक सी/223 बटा से किया गया जिरह की कार्यवाही। प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा बल संख्या 041546275 सिपाही/जीडी हरीश हरीतवाल से पूछे गये प्रश्नोत्तर।
31/03/18 बल संख्या 005010396 निरी/ जीडी सन्तोष सिंह x Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
समवाय अधिकारी सी/223 बटा का बयान एवं प्रश्नोतर तथा आरोपी के द्वारा बल संख्या 005010396 निरी/ जीडी सन्तोष सिंह समवाय अधिकारी सी/223 बटा. से किया गया जिरह की कार्यवाही व प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा बल संख्या 006010396 निरी/ जोडी सन्तोष सिंह से पूछे गये प्रश्नोत्तर।
04/04/18 बल सं० 951300974 हव/जीडी मुन्ना राम उप० Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
प्रशा० लिपिक 223 बटा का बयान एवं प्रश्नोतर तथा आरोपी के द्वारा बल सं० 951360974 हव/जीडी मुन्ना राम उप० प्रशाळ लिपिक 223 बटा से किया गया जिरह की कार्यवाही । प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा बल संख्या 951360974 हय/जीडी मुन्ना राम से पूछे गये प्रश्नोत्तर।
05/04/18 बल सं०:- 910040208 हव/जीडी राके श कु मार Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
बी०एच०एम० 223 बटा का बल सं० 135324015 सिपाही/बिगु० सत्यम महापात्रा के विरूद्ध दिये गये बयान एवं प्रश्नोतर तथा आरोपी के द्वारा बल सं०- 910040208 हव/जीडी राके श कु मार बी०एच०एम० 223 बटा से किया गया जिरह । प्रस्तुति अधिकारी 8 द्वारा बल संख्या 910040208 हव/जीडी राके श कु मार से पुछे गये प्रश्नोत्तर।
06/04/18 बल सं० 035142013 उप निरी/जीडी पवन कु मार दुबे x Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
उप निरी प्रशा० का बल सं० 135324015 सिपाही / बिगु० सत्यम महापात्रा के विरुद्ध दिये गये बयान एवं प्रश्नोतर तथा आरोपी के द्वारा बल स० 035142013 उप निरी/जीडी पवन कु मार दुबे उप निरी. प्रशा० से किया गया जिरह । प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा बल संख्या 035142013 उप निरी/जीडी पवन कु मार दुबे से पुछे गये प्रश्नोत्तर।
07/04/18 बल सं० 095341125 हव/मंत्रा० सुभाष कु मार झा Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
स्था०दो-223 बटा० के रिपुबल का ब्यान एवं प्रश्नोतर तथा आरोपी के द्वारा बल सं० 095341125 हय/मंत्रा० सुभाष कु मार झा स्था०दो-223 बटा० से किया गया जिरह प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा बल संख्या 095341125 हव/मंत्रा० सुभाष कु मार झा से पुछे गये प्रश्नोत्तर।
14/05/18 आज दिनाक 14/05/18 को पत्र संख्या-जी-दो- x Sd/- x Sd/-
01/2018-सुशील कु शर्मा दिनाक 14/05/2018 के तहत आरोपी को अपना बचाव पक्ष रखने हेतू 15 दिन का समय दिया गया 20/05/18 आज दिनाक 20/05/18 को पत्र संख्या -पी-आठ- x x x Sd/-
01/18-एस०के ०शर्मा दिनाक 20/05/18 के तहत विभागीय जी के बारे में मुख्यालय को अवगत करवाया गया 27/05/18 आज दिनाक 27/05/18 को पत्र सं -पी-आठ-01/18- x Sd/- x Sd/-
सू.कु .ष. दिनाक 27/05/18 के तहत मुख्यालय को अवगत कराया गया कि आरोपी कार्मिक बल संख्या 135324015 सि./ बिगु सत्यम महापात्रा को बचाव पक्ष रखने का समय दिनाक 28/05/18 को समाप्त हो रहा है अतः आरोपी कार्मिक को जाँच अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करे ।
28/05/18 आज दिनाक 28/05/18 को बल संख्या 135324015 x Sd/- x Sd/-
सि./बिगु सत्यम महापात्रा अपने बचाव संबंधी दस्तावेज के साथ जाँच अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत हुआ।
29/05/18 आज दिनाक 29/05/18 को बल संख्या 135324015 x Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
सि/बिगु सत्यम महापात्रा का बयान एवं प्रश्नोत्तर 30/05/18 आज दिनाक 30/05/18 को प्रस्तुत अधिकारी को x x Sd/- Sd/-
रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने हेतू निर्देशित किया गया। 30/05/18 आज दिनांक 31/05/18 को प्रस्तुति अधिकारी द्वारा x x Sd/- Sd/-
अपनी रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत की गई 31/05/18 आज दिनाक 31/05/18 को अभियुक्त के उपर लगाये x Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
गये उपबंध एक एवं दो के मद एम दो एवं तीन में लगाये 9 गये आरोपों को स्वीकार एवं अस्वीकार करने के संबंध में जी अधिकारी द्वारा पूछे गये सवाल-जवाब ।
01/06/18 जाँच अधिकारी द्वारा जारी विभागीय जाँच की रिपोर्ट x x x Sd/- 01/06/18 जाँच अधिकारी का निष्कर्ष एवं राय x x x Sd/-
7. From perusal of the proceedings of the departmental enquiry, it further transpires that there is an acknowledgment of the petitioner with respect to receiving the documents during the departmental enquiry proceedings and the statement of the witnesses. It also transpires that when the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was given to the petitioner, he refused to cross-examine the witnesses. From perusal of the entire record of the departmental enquiry, it further transpires that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, and he has not made any application or objection that he has not been provided any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or supply of any document. Even from the statement of the petitioner recorded on 29.05.2018, which is available in the records of the departmental enquiry, it transpires that without informing anyone, he had gone to his house on his own and had not made any communication to the authorities, he received the article of charges. He also admitted that sufficient opportunity was provided to him in departmental enquiry proceedings to put up his case, take the assistance of defence, but he did not take any assistance. From the record of departmental enquiry proceedings, it is quite vivid that the petitioner had appeared in the departmental proceedings till its completion, and despite being given an opportunity, he refused to accept the defence assistant.
8. There is no explanation from the petitioner with respect to his 10 unauthorized absence from 13.07.2017 to 20.02.2018. The warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 05.09.2017, and he was declared a deserter on 25.01.2018 as he remained absent from his duty without any intimation or sanctioned leave. The desertion of the force is a punishable offence as provided under Section 9(f) of the CRPF Act, 1949, and Section 11 provides the punishment. The two following charges have been found proved against the petitioner:-
"मद्-एक यह है कि बल संख्या 135324015 सिपाही/ बिगुलर सत्यम महापात्रा, सी/223 बटालियन के .रि.पु.बल ने सिपाही/बिगुलर के पद पर कार्यरत रहते हुये के .रि.पु.बल अधिनियम 1949 की धारा-11 (1) के अन्तर्गत बल का सदस्य होने की हैसियत से अनुशासनहीनता / अवतार एवं कदाचार का अपराध किया है, जिसमें कार्मिक को दिनांक 12/07/17 को स्वयं के ईलाज के लिए 65 -बटालियन के रिपुबल रायपुर भेजा गया था लेकिन कार्मिक 65 बटालियन में रिपोर्ट नहीं किया और दिनांक 13/07/17 से बरास्ता सक्षम प्राधिकारी क अनुमति के बिना ड्यूटी से अनुपस्थित चल रहा है जो कि के ०रि०पु०बल के आदर्शों/नियमों के खिलाफ है और के न्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल अधिनियम 1949 की धारा 11 [1] के साथ पठित के रिपुबल नियमावली, 1955 के नियम 27 के तहत दण्डनीय अपराध है।
मद्-दो यह कि बल संख्या 135324015 सिपाही/बिगुलर सत्यम महापात्रा, सी/223 बटालियन के .रि.पु.वल ने सिपाही/बिगुलर के पद पर कार्यरत रहते हुए बल के सदस्य होने की हैसियत से के .रि.पु.बल अधिनियम 1949 की धारा 11 (1) के अधीन वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों के आदेशों की अवहेलना /अवज्ञा करने का अपराध पूर्व में भी किया है, जिसके अन्तर्गत कार्मिक बिना किसी सक्षम प्राधिकार के अवकाश से दिनांक 14/01/15 से 20/02/15 तक कु ल 38 दिन, दिनांक 25/04/15 से 26/04/15 तक कु ल 02 दिन, दिनांक 02/02/17 से 06/02/17 तक कु ल 05 दिन एवं दिनांक 22/04/17 से 18/05/17 तक कु ल 27 दिन अवकाश से गैरहाजिर रहा है, इससे प्रतीत होता है कि कार्मिक अवकाश से गैरहाजिर होने का आदी है जो कि बल के आदर्शो/ नियमों के खिलाफ है तथा के रिपुबल अधिनियम 1949 की धारा 11 (1) के साथ पठित के रिपुबल नियमावली, 1955 के नियम 27 के तहत दण्डनीय है।"11
9. It also transpires from the order dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure P/2) that the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of his removal from service dated 20.06.2018 has been elaborately considered by the appellate authority, and a detailed and reasoned order has been passed affirming the removal order of the petitioner from service. The petitioner has also availed the remedy of revision as provided under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which has also been considered by the revisional authority, and a reasoned order has been passed on 18.06.2021 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The order of removal of the petitioner from service has been concurrently upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities by passing a detailed and reasoned order considering all the aspects of the case, factually as well as legally. In para 8.1 and 8.2 of the order dated 04-12-2020, passed in departmental appeal, the appellate authority held that:-
"1. याचिकाकर्ता को स्वयं के ईलाज के लिए 223 बटालियन से दिनांक 12/07/2017 को 65 बटालियन फे रिपुबल, रायपुर भेजा गया। याचिकाकर्ता 65 बटालियन में रिपोर्ट नहीं किया तथा स्वयं की मर्जी से भगौड़ा हो गया।
2. कमाण्डैट 223 बटालियन के पत्र सं० डब्लू दो. 1/2017-223-स्था-दो दिन क 05/09/2017 के तहत याचिकाकर्ता को गिरफ्तार करने के लिए गिरफ्तारी वारंट पुलिस अधिक्षक जिला रायगढ़ (छ०१०) को भेजा गया लेकिन उक्त गिरफ्तारी वारंट की तामील नहीं हो पाथी। गिरफ्तारी वारंट जारी होने के उपरांत भी याचिकाकर्ता न तो ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित हुआ और न ही कोई पत्राचार किया।"
10. Now comes the next question as to the scope of interference by the High Court while entertaining a petition dealing with disciplinary proceedings. It is a settled position of law that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the 12 Constitution of India, has very minimal powers to interfere with a disciplinary proceeding, particularly when it has been conducted after a full-fledged departmental enquiry. The High Court cannot substitute itself as an Appellate Authority to a disciplinary proceeding, nor can the High Court go into the entire evidence and re-appreciate the same and reach a different conclusion. When the inquiry report is based on the evidence which have been adduced by the parties during the inquiry proceedings. Under such circumstances, the High Court cannot further go into the adequacy of evidence or the reliability of the evidence.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the case of "S. R. Tewari Vs. Union of India", (2013) 6 SCC 602 in paragraphs 19, 20 & 21 have held as under:-
"19. In the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1182, this Court held that various parameters of the court's power of judicial review of administrative or executive action on which the court can interfere had been well settled and it would be redundant to recapitulate the whole catena of decisions. The Court further held:
"11. ....It is a settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to, or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach, or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the court would be justified in interfering with the same."
20. The court can exercise the power of judicial review if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not 13 exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise of power would stand vitiated. The court may be justified in exercising the power of judicial review if the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the order had been passed by the authority beyond the limits conferred upon the authority by the legislature. Thus, the court has to be satisfied that the order had been passed by the authority only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety before it interferes. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and interfering with the order of the authority may impose heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead to unbudgeted expenditure. (Vide: Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11; People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 456; and State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080)."
21. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., AIR (2000) SC 801, this Court explaining the scope of judicial review held that the court must act with great caution and should exercise such power only in furtherance to public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court must always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not."
12. A similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1783 and also in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Bodupalli Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553, wherein the Supreme Court has in a very categorical terms held that in departmental enquiry proceedings the scope of Court's are very limited. It has been reiterated by the Supreme Court that in a disciplinary proceeding matters the Courts cannot substitute its own finding by replacing the finding arrived at by 14 the authority that too after detailed appreciation of the evidence brought on record. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that under Article 226 of Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority. It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the High Court under Article 226 would not reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different and independent finding.
13. A similar view also has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, For ready reference paragraph 12, 13 and 15 of the said judgment reproduced hereinunder:-
"12. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;15
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv).
go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the same issue in the case of "State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya" reported in 2011 (4) SCC 584 in paragraph No.7 held as under:
7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and 16 the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi -Versus- Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan -
1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India -Versus-
Degala Suryanarayana - 1999 (5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil- 2001 (1) SCC 416)."
14. Once the law is settled that in disciplinary proceedings, unless there is a ground of perversity or the finding is contrary to the evidence on record or there is a technical flaw in the conducting of the departmental enquiry, the Court should be slow in interfering with such findings which are based on evidence which has come on record.
15. The police force is a disciplined force and shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in society. People repose great faith and confidence, and the person who joins the force must be a person of utmost rectitude. The term 'discipline' does not mean being disciplined during working hours, particularly when they belong to a uniformed force. The conduct of a member of a 17 uniformed force, or for that matter, a police officer, also has to be disciplined even when he is not on duty hours. The society expects from the police personnel or person from the uniformed force to ensure that the public order is maintained in the highest, and that is expected of them even when they are not discharging their official duties.
16. From closed scrutiny of the documents as well as pleadings of the parties, this Court do not find any scope of interference in the impugned orders passed by respondent authorities, by which the petitioner has been removed from service and his appeal and revision have been dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved