Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31085 of 2011 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Kamadev Rout …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Dy. Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar and Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Adv. Smt. J. Nayak, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-15.07.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks an order from this Court to overturn the imposed punishment. Additionally, the Petitioner prays for the annulment of the Appellate Authority’s order dated 08.09.2010 and the Reviewing Authority’s order dated 11.10.2011, exoneration from all charges, and a directive to the opposite parties to grant all consequential benefits. Page 1 of 11
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner, a Subedar Inspector (Ministerial) at Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar, was assigned to assist the Recruitment Board of CT/GD at Siliguri Centre in December 2008. He was sent by his Group Centre and reported for duty on 27.12.2008. (ii) On 27.12.2008, the petitioner reported late for duty and responded disrespectfully when he was questioned about his tardiness. The following day, on 28.12.2008, he failed to complete assigned tasks on time and refused to report for duty, citing personal reasons. On 29.12.2008, he engaged in misconduct by making inappropriate comments about the candidates and subsequently left the recruitment ground without proper permission after complaining of illness. The petitioner was detained in the medical room on 30.12.2008 due to his illness. (iii) Based on complaints from the recruitment board, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Eastern Sector, CRPF, directed disciplinary action, and the petitioner was placed under suspension from 9.01.2009. (iv) Subsequently, a Departmental Inquiry (DI) was initiated against the petitioner on 18.02.2009, to investigate the charges of indiscipline and misconduct. (v) The petitioner’s suspension was extended/ and he faced further disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, his suspension was revoked on 22.09.2009. Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (vi) The petitioner was then punished with stoppage of annual increments for three years with cumulative effect and his suspension period was treated as such. The punishment was challenged by the petitioner. (vii) WThe petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (IGP, Easter Sector) which was rejected on 08.09.2010. Following that, he preferred a revision petition before the Director General (DG), CRPF, which was also rejected on 11.10.2011. (viii) Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking an order from the Court to set aside the imposed punishment. The petitioner further prays that the Court annul the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 08.09.2010 and the Reviewing Authority dated 11.10.2011 and seeks exoneration from all charges, and direct the opposite parties to provide all consequential benefits. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner submitted that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself as required by law. He further submitted that the key documents were not provided, no presenting officer was appointed, and the inquiry was conducted in violation of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and CRPF Rules, 1955. (ii) He further submitted that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before his suspension, which is required under law while initiating Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 disciplinary action. The suspension order was based solely on a signal message from the recruitment board. (iii) The petitioner contended that the findings of the inquiry officer are alleged to be ex-facie perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. For example, while the inquiry officer found the petitioner’s tone and behaviour disrespectful, it was not corroborated by the evidence of any other staff members. Similarly, the charge of absence without permission was held as proved, despite evidence showing that the petitioner had sought permission and was medically unfit. (iv) He further contended that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He further contends that the charges levelled against him were minor offences under the CRPF Act, 1949, but the punishment awarded was far more severe and was shocking disproportionate. (v) The petitioner highlights that the suspension period from 08.07.2009 to 21.09.2009 was unauthorized, and the order revoking the suspension was issued much later without addressing the gap in the suspension period, thereby unjustly depriving him of his legitimate financial benefits. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i).
Decision
It is submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed for failure to implead the Union of India as a necessary party under applicable rules. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (ii). It is further submitted that the petitioner displayed insolent and indiscipline behaviour during his recruitment duty, including reporting late, making inappropriate comments, refusing to follow orders, and failing to complete assigned tasks. (iii). (iv). It is contended that the disciplinary action and subsequent inquiry were conducted in accordance with CRPF Rules and CCS (CCA) Rules, and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. It is further contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the appellate authorities found no merit in the petitioner’s challenges. (v). It is argued that that this Writ Petition is devoid of merit and should be dismissed based on the above facts and the petitioner’s failure to justify his actions or the irregularities alleged in the inquiry process. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and reviewed the materials presented, the key issue before this Court is whether it is appropriate to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, as affirmed by both the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, given the facts of the case. 6. It is a well-established principle that Courts should avoid intervening in findings of fact from departmental inquiries, except in cases where such findings are manifestly perverse, grossly inconsistent with the evidence, or entirely unsupported by evidence. However, if there has been a violation of natural justice, non-compliance with statutory regulations, Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 or evidence of malafides on the part of the Disciplinary Authority, judicial interference is justified. 7. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India,1 the Supreme Court also held that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow: “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere 1 (1995) 6 SCC 749 Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. xxx xxx xxx 18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would the appropriately mould disciplinary/appellate authority the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional either to reconsider directing relief, the Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by an employee of the state, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with or not. 9. In this context, the Supreme Court, in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya2 observed in paragraph 7 as follows: “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 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. The 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.” 10. Similarly, outlining the broad parameters for the High Courts to exercise their powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution in 2(2011) 4 SCC 584. Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 matters of disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran3stated in para 12 and 13: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 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 Articles 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 some themselves considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (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: conclusion by reaching a from fair (i) reappreciate 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; 3(2015) 2 SCC 610. Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (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.” 11. The principles established above make it evident that, in exercising judicial review, the Courts are not to assess the correctness of the disciplinary authority’s decision. Instead, their review is confined to evaluating the process by which the decision was made, ensuring it was based on the evidence presented, without treating the matter as an appeal against the challenged order. 12. Upon reviewing the records, it is evident that the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent inquiry were conducted in compliance with CRPF Rules and CCS (CCA) Rules. The petitioner was also afforded sufficient opportunity to present his defense. 13. It is crucial to note that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings differs significantly from that in a criminal trial. The inquiry officer and authorities are expected to assess the evidence based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, rather than the stringent requirements of statutory provisions. In light of this, the disciplinary authority’s evaluation of the materials and its decision to impose punishment on the petitioner, grounded on such a standard, does not warrant any interference. 14. Hence, this Court finds itself in complete agreement with the findings returned by conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, duly Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 confirmed by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the Revisional Authority. 15. As the Petitioner’s counsel has not succeeded in demonstrating a prima facie case of lack of evidence, there is no basis to justify any interference. 16. Consequently, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Sept, 2024/ Page 11 of 11