Judicial review of departmental proceedings remains restricted to the decision-making process; however, courts may interfere when findings are based on inadmissible evidence, no material, or are deemed perverse, as such conclusions fail to meet the standard of a reasonable decision.

JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petitioner/appellant, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘CISF’), was visited with a penalty of dismissal from service pursuant to an enquiry. The dismissal order dated 24.07.2013 awarding the punishment of “removal from service” with immediate effect and certain consequential orders were put to challenge by the writ petitioner/appellant in the writ proceeding, which was dismissed on 05.01.2016 by the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the present intra court appeal.

3. Early in the morning on 15.10.2012, the writ petitioner’s/appellant’s wife was found to have committed suicide by hanging herself on the ceiling fan hook in the appellant’s official quarter. The appellant/petitioner was, thus, served with an article of charge alleging a gross misdemeanor unbecoming of a member of the Force. It was alleged that petitioner subjected his wife to cruelty and harassment, due to which his wife committed suicide.

4. The charge memo is dated 10.12.2012. The enquiry was thus initiated. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report dated 21.06.2013 holding that the charge was proved beyond doubt.

5. The appellant/petitioner was afforded an opportunity of making his submissions against the enquiry report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment dated 24.07.2013 against the writ petitioner/appellant.

6. The learned Single Judge, while considering the appellant’s challenge to the findings of the enquiry officer and the punishment, was of the view that the allegations of abuse and torture on the wife by a member of the Force, leading to an unnatural death of the wife, constitutes a gross misdemeanor. He found that such an act would render the appellant unfit for continuing to serve the Force. The learned Single Judge further recorded that there was enough material to render a finding regarding abusive behavour of the petitioner/appellant against his wife, leading to her unnatural death, as a result of suicide. He found that the enquiry officer’s findings were based on oral evidence, which was referred to in the enquiry report.

7. The disciplinary authority, thus, endorsed the findings of the enquiry officer leading to the punishment of removal from service. Having regard to the nature of service, learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment cannot be said to be in any way excessive. The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of punishment.

8. The learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on any material adduced in the enquiry before the enquiry officer. He submits that the conclusions of the enquiry officer regarding the charge being proved is based on statements of the two CWs, i.e. CW-1 (the writ petitioner’s father) and CW-3 (the writ petitioner’s father-in- law). The statements of these two witnesses relied upon were marked as Exhibit 7 & 8 respectively. These statements are said to be the statements made by these two witnesses during the fact finding enquiry preceding the issuance of a charge memo. Those statements are of the pre charge memo period, and the same we