In disciplinary proceedings, the court's interference with the quantum of punishment is limited. The court can only interfere if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved or is contrary to statutory provisions or in excess of the power conferred upon the disciplinary authority.

The judgment of the Court was as follows:––

The petitioner was a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short CISF). Petitioner has questioned the order of dismissal dated August 10, 2000 by the disciplinary authority being Annexure P-24. It was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated August 7, 2001 being Annexure P-26. As many as five charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969. In substance and effect, the imputation in the charges framed against the petitioner is to the effect that the delinquent (petitioner) devised, designed and executed financial irregularity amounting to Rs.70,871/- by which the charged officer deceived his superior officer thereby failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Along with the articles of charge, list of documents by which the said charges was proposed to be sustained was furnished to the petitioner along with a list of witnesses by whom the said charges were proposed to be established.

2. One of the grievances of the petitioner was that he prayed for furnishing of the preliminary enquiry report along with the statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry, which was denied to him. It is, however, not disputed that the other documents prayed for by the petitioner as per his letter Annexure 'B' at page 31 dated December 20, 1999 were furnished to him by the respondent authority through the covering letter Annexure P-3. The reasons for non-supply of the preliminary enquiry report is stated in Annexure P-5 being the letter dated February 12, 2000 on the ground that it is an inter office correspondence and since not considered relevant for preparation of the defence, the same was not supplied. Petitioner was also informed through the same letter that the relevant documents, as listed in Annexure-III to the charge sheet had already been supplied and that if the petitioner wishes to inspect the same documents, he may report to the office on any working day and can as well take extracts thereof.

3. A prayer was also made by the petitioner for change of the enquiry officer on the ground that some of the witnesses on behalf of the department are senior in rank to the enquiry officer. The said plea was rejected by the disciplinary authority on the ground that there is no rule to debar an Inspector to conduct the enquiry when PWs are senior to him in rank.

4. Another grievance of the petitioner was that the enquiry officer erroneously rejected the prayer of the petitioner to summon the Assistant Director (Accounts) New Delhi and Audit Team (MHA) as defence witnesses on the ground that consent letter of those officers had not been placed before the enquiry officer. According to the petitioner, there is no rule that the charge official is required to submit consent letter from the defence witnesses. Whereas, according to the enquiry officer, the responsibilities and duties of Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) are enumerated in the rules and are not the matter under investigation in the case and, therefore, unless consent letter of the officers which the petitioner wanted to examine as his witness was placed, he could not call the said officers as defence witnesses.

5. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of all the five charges framed against him. A copy of the said report was furnished by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner by his letter Annexure P-22 at page 58 and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to make any representation or submission in relation thereto within the time framed thereby. The petitioner asked for and was granted further time to submit his representation. The disciplinary authority considered the submissions made by the petitioner and was of the view that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice in the conducting of the enquiry and that the same has been conducted as per the prescribed procedure. The disciplinary authority considered th