Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
P Nainesh Ambarambhai – Petitioner
Versus
Commandant & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 1804 of 2015
Decided On : 24-04-2024
Judicial Review - Disciplinary Inquiry - CRPF Act, 1949 - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - [DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY] - [CRPF Act, 1949, Section 11(i), Article 1, II, II, IV] - The court discussed the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and emphasized that the High Courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters and substitute their opinion for the one formed by the disciplinary authority. The court also highlighted the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule, emphasizing that the High Court should not interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry if the same has been conducted in accordance with the law and should not go into the adequacy or reliability of the evidence or the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable general duty in CRPF, was dismissed from service for alleged misconduct. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a departmental appeal and a subsequent petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority had not committed any error in passing the impugned orders, and the petition was devoid of merits. The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, vacating any interim relief.
Issues: The issues involved in the present petition were whether the punishment imposed by the respondent-authority was disproportionate and whether the Court could interfere in the order of punishment only on the ground of the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and highlighted the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule. It also reiterated that the High Courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters and substitute their opinion for the one formed by the disciplinary authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, vacating any interim relief.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs.
1. Your lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the vide dated 18.12.2013 and order passed by the Commandant, C.R.P.F. dated 23.03.2011 as well as order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.r.P.F dated 12.07.2011 and order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Inspector General of Police, West Zone, C.R.P.F., New Mumbai and the Petitioner may be allowed to join his duty forthwith. By setting aside the order of dismissal.
Or in the alternative
Your lordship may be pleased to direct the respondents authorities that the case of the Petitioner may be considered for the less grave punishment and same minor punishment may be awarded on the ground of parity and be taken back in service.
B. The Petitioner may be granted the monetary benefits for his service for which otherwise he is entitled.
C. Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, your Lordships may be pleased to stay implementation, execution and the operation of the said judgment and order passed by the Commandant, C.R.P.F. dated 23.03.2011 as well as order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. dated 12.07.2011 and order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Inspector General of Police, West Zone, C.R.P.F., New Mumbai and/or be pleased to grant the status quo ante and the Petitioner may be allowed to join service on such conditions as deemed fit.
D. Your Lordship be pleased to grant in other and further relief in the interest of justice.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was service as Sipahi bearing No.015121261 and posted at Bandaval, Udaipur (South Tripura) as a constable general duty. That while the petitioner was on duty, he was found for the alleged misconduct and for that respondents have issued charge-sheet on 15.12.2010. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the relevant documents, the petitioner came to be dismissed from the services on 23.03.2011 by the Disciplinary Authority.
2.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner had preferred departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Director General, C.R.P.F., which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2013.
2.2 The petitioner preferred the present petition challenging the said orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
3. Heard Mr.Yogin Bhambhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Krisha Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Mr.Yogin Bhambhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of punishment is disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner who is serving as constable general duty in C.R.P.F. and from the date of joining his service, there is no other disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner or no any show-cause notice was issued against him and considering his career, the impugned order of punishment is very harsh. He has submitted that the both the authorities have not considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and without considering the documentary evidence, without application of mind, the impugned order came to be passed. He has submitted that the petition be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mrs.Krishna Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the petition and the charge against the petitioner is serious in nature considering the fact that he was serving in arm forced and being a disciplinary force, the petitioner has committed breach and, therefore, no leniency be shown in favour of the petitioner. She has submitted that the petition has been filed after almost two years from the date of the order passed by the Appella
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
