The court's reluctance to interfere with departmental proceedings unless there are substantial procedural irregularities or lack of evidence.

Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. etitioner was an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and the disciplinary authority by order dated 30th of June, 1999 (Annexure-21) inflicted the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority by order dated 12th of November, 1999 (Annexure-23) dismissed the same. Petitioner thereafter preferred revision and the revisional authority by order dated 30th of April, 2001 (Annexure-1) modified the punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement from service with full retiral benefits.

2. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is to quash the aforesaid orders as also the enquiry report dated 8.5.1999 (Annexure-2) which formed the basis of punishment.

3. Petitioner, a Sub Inspector of the Central, Industrial Security Force (for short the Force) was posted at the relevant time in National Thermal Power Corporation at Kahalgaon. He was served with a memo of charge dated 15th of January, 1999 (Annexure-3). According to the charge on 21.12.1998 at 4.30 P.M. petitioner came at the volley ball ground and started talking in high pitch with the member playing there and used abusive language against the officers of the Force which led to commotion in the play ground. It was further alleged that the Assistant Commandant, Reserve Inspectors and other officers who were in the play ground tried to counsel him but the petitioner behaved in a derogatory manner with them. The second charge pertained to infliction of five penalties earlier for the misconduct. Petitioner was given opportunity to defend his case and ultimately the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 8.5.1999 (Annexure-2) holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges A copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner and he was asked to submit the reply and the disciplinary authority on consideration of the same inflicted the penalty of removal from service. Appeal preferred against the said order also failed but the revision application filed by the petitioner met with partial success and the revisional authority by order dated 30.4.2001 reduced the penalty of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement with full retiral benefits.

4. Mr. Gautam Saha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Charge No. 1 is false and fabricated and has not been proved. He submits that the petitioner instead of being sent to the N.T.P.C. Hospital was sent to the Bhagalpur Medical College and Hospital and it was done to procure a favourable report. He also points out that none of the members of the force who were, in fact, playing the volley ball has been examined in the departmental proceeding and as such the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer is unsustainable. He also points out that although the doctor has given a report that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor but the said report has been given without any test. Mr. R K. Shahi, Central Government Standing Counsel, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that this Court cannot act as a court of appeal against the finding of the commoenquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority. He points out that the petitioner in sum and substance is asking for reappraisal of the evidence which is not possible.

5. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Saha. It is well settled that this Court does not act as a court of appeal against the finding recorded by the authorities in a departmental proceeding. It interferes with the finding only when it is shown that the same is based on no material or the finding has been rendered without consideration of the relevant material or on consideration of irrelevant material or a person duly instructed in law shall not come to that conclusion.