SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. SONAK, R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
Mr. Hanamatarao M. Kulkarni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Goa – Respondent
Writ Petition No.440 of 2015
Decided on : 28-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V. Ameya Nayak Salatry, Advocate.
For the Respondent Ms. S. Pinto, Advocate h/f. Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Adv

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Disciplinary Enquiry - Suspension - Case of petitioner is that he was recruited in Electricity Department, and during relevant period posted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) - He was, by an order, placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry – Held, In present case, it is not in dispute that enquiry is held by competent authority - There is no allegation that authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations - Conclusions arrived at by appellate authority cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion - There is no allegation that disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced findings - There is nothing on record to show that finding of fact is based on no evidence - In writ jurisdiction, Court cannot go into proportionality of punishment unless it shocks conscience - Respondent-Appellate Authority has already reduced major penalty to a minor penalty - Apart from aspect that High Court does not correct a finding of fact on ground that evidence is not sufficient or adequate, evidence in present case which was considered by Tribunal cannot be scanned by High Court to justify conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify finding of Tribunal that respondent did not make journey - Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions - It is not possible for High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions - High Court reviewed evidence, reassessed evidence and then rejected evidence as no evidence - In backdrop of aforesaid legal position, Court observe restraint in disturbing order of respondent-Appellate Authority – Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Laddha, J.

This petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 22/11/2013 passed by the Secretary (Power)/Appellate Authority, Government of Goa, imposing a minor penalty upon him, as per the provision contained under Rule-11(iv) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited in the Electricity Department, Government of Goa, in the year 1983 and during the relevant period posted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) at Panaji. He was, by an order dated 09/02/2011, placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry. The respondent No.3, therefore, in exercise of its power under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 directed that a departmental enquiry be held against the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner had frequently remained absent from duties unauthorizedly and had not attended the official correspondence.

3. An enquiry was held into the said charges. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and passed an order imposing upon the petitioner major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for the period of five years. The suspension of the petitioner was also revoked by the said order.

4. The petitioner then preferred statutory appeal challenging the findings against him on the merits. The Respondent No.2 being the Appellate Authority, partly accepted the conclusions of the disciplinary authority and reduced the quantum of penalty imposed on the petitioner from reduction to a lower stage in the time scale to pay for the period of 5 years to withholding one increment of pay for the period of two years, by stating thus:

“ This Order shall dispose off the Appeal dated 15.04.2013, filed before the undersigned by Shri H.M. Kulkarni, Junior Engineer(Elect) attached to the Electricity Department, Government of Goa, Panaji - Goa, against the major penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, vide its Order dated 28.03.2013, whereby Shri Kulkarni was penalized with reduction of his Band pay by five stages from Rs.20,450/- to Rs. 18,090/- and grade pay from Rs. 6,600/- to 4,200/- for the period of five years, i.e. with effect from the date of his increment falling due.

The said Shri H.M. Kulkarni, Junior Engineer (Elect) was heared in person on 4th and 19th September 2013 as well as on 4th October 2013.

I have carefully gone through the records of the Disciplinary proceedings for major penalty, as well as the Order dated 28.03.2013 of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the aforementioned penalty.

In the appeal filed before the undersigned, the aforesaid, Shri H.M. Kulkarni, Junior Engineer(Elect) has confirmed that the Charge-Sheet Memorandum dated 31.05.2011 have been duly served on him, however he was not satisfied with the Inquiry Report. His plea has been that the Article-I contained in the Charge-Sheet Memorandum dated 31.05.2011 which charged that he had remained un-authorisedly absent from duties and not honoured the official correspondence assigned to him, has not been proved in the Inquiry proceedings. Further, he also pleaded that the penalty imposed on him vide order dated 28.03.2013 by the Disciplinary Authority is too harsh.

In the personal hearing, Shri H.M. Kulkarni, Junior Engineer(Elect) presented the documentary evidence in his defence before undersigned such as medical certificates and also the certified copies of the attendance register. Further, he also tried to convince the undersigned that on some occasions, his absence was not willful, but due to his deteriorated health.

I have carefully examined the pros and cons of the case and it is confirmed by documentary evidence placed before me, that on some occasions the said Shri H.M. Kulkarni, Junior Eng

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top