The High Court cannot act as an appellate authority and reappreciate the evidence in disciplinary proceedings. The punishment imposed should be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Mehare, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Petitioner/delinquent has impugned the order of dismissing his Original application No. 52/2011 dated 08.02.2013 by the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal at aurangabad.

3. The brief facts of the case are that,

The delinquent was a police constable appointed on 18.08.1996 at Jalna. He then was transferred to Manwat Police Station in the Parbhani district. However, he did not join. It is alleged against him that he was absent from his duties unauthorizedly from 06.11.2004. He claimed that he was not feeling well. Hence, he proceeded on sick leave from 14.12.2004. He had submitted an appropriate application for sick leave; however, respondent no 4 served a suspension order to him on 14.02.2005. Thereafter, on 01.08.2005, the copies of the article of charges, the statement of the imputations of misconduct, the list of witnesses and documents were served on him. The charges against the petitioner were that, from 06.11.2004, he was on unauthorized sick leave; even after repeated intimations to join, he deliberately did not join on duties. He also did not join at the place of his transfer. By remaining absent from his duties, he was indirectly allowed to produce illicit/duplicate liquor supported illegal activities. He was protecting such illegal business by personally remaining present in the field wherein the said illegal activities were being carried out. He was also charged for an act of misconduct, that he deliberately did not inform the police about the said illegal business of manufacturing the duplicate liquor. In a raid by the police station, Buldhana the contraband worth Rs. 10 lakh was seized from his field. Therefore, the image of the police department was lowered down. He was also charged for creating a fraudulent agreement in the name of his brother to pretend that, he has no concern with the said illegal business.

4. The Disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiring authority. The Inquiring authority conducted a full-fledged departmental inquiry against the petitioner. after completing the inquiry, the petitioner was called upon to submit his final written statement, which he submitted on 29. 11.2005. The petitioner stated that no repeated intimations to join the duty were given to him. He was not well and hence could not join his duty. He had submitted his medical certificates to his office. He had no concern with the illegal manufacturing of duplicate liquor. The factory was in the field of his brother's share. He also denied the remaining charges levelled against him. He further submitted that statements of the neighbouring agriculturist were not supplied to him. None of the charges was proved against him, and hence he may be exonerated.

5. The Inquiring authority submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary authority on 07.01.2006. The Inquiring authority held that all the charges against the delinquent were proved. The Inquiring authority proposed punishment of dismissal of the delinquent from the service. On 15.01.2016, the Disciplinary authority served a show-cause notice on the delinquent, calling upon him to explain why the punishment of dismissal or removal from service shall be imposed on him. The delinquent submitted the same explanation that none of the charges had been proved against him. He was not involved in any illegal manufacturing of duplicate liquor. His absence was beyond his control.

The Inquiring authority has not appreciated the evidence in proper perception. Hence, the inquiry report is liable to be dropped and, he is entitled to be exonerated.

6. The Disciplinary authority, considering the explanation to the last show cause before by his order dated 31.05.2006, imposed a major penalty of dismissal upon the delinquent from his services as per Rule 3(1) of the Bombay (now Maharashtra) Police (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1956 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and appeal) Rule