IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary authority's findings are conclusive unless proven perverse, and the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct.

ORDER :

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar J.

This writ petition has been filed to challenge the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in Original Application No.251 of 2007 not to interfere with the penalty of dismissal dated 27th September 2006. The writ petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 21st December 2023 by which the petition seeking review of the order dated 16th March 2011 has been dismissed.

2. In the order dated 16th March 2011, the Tribunal considered the judgments in “Prabhu Lal Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” (1993) LAB I.C. 1000, “Gadadhar Rambin vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.” (1989) 4 SLR 724 and, “Har Govind Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors.” in O.A. No.148 of 1994 relied upon by the petitioner. The Tribunal also referred to the judgments in “Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. T.K. Raju” (2006) 3 SCC 143 and “Syndicate Bank & Ors. vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati” (2006) 3 SCC 150 cited on behalf of the employer-Heavy Water Board.

3. The Tribunal after having considered the rival contentions came to a conclusion that it has no power to re-appreciate the evidence or to interfere with the punishment awarded to the delinquent government employee and, accordingly, dismissed the Original Application No.251 of 2007.

4. Mr. Sharvan Kumar Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even taking the findings recorded by the departmental authority to be correct, the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized absence from duty and, that too, for one month only. To lay support to this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to “Ranjeet Thakur vs. Union of India” (1987) 4 SCC 611 and “B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India” (1995) 6 SCC 749.

5. Briefly stated, the petitioner who was appointed on the post of Fireman was holding the post of Leading Fireman-B at the relevant time. He was served a memo of charge on 10th February 2005 on the allegation that he had misrepresented the grounds of his absence from duty by furnishing false reasons and he suppressed vital information about his arrest and police/judicial custody in connection to a criminal case. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report vide letter dated 29th April 2006 and held as under:

“10. FINDINGS ON EACH CHARGE:

a. The Charged Official is not guilty of remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty from 11.07.2004 to 10.08.2004.

b. The Charged Official is guilty of misrepresenting the grounds of his absence by furnishing false reasons.

c. The Charged Official is guilty of suppressing the vital information about his arrest and Police/judicial custody in connection with the criminal case.

d. Because of the absence of the Charged Official, the work in Fire Services Section was adversely affected.

e. There is no proof that the image of the Department is tarnished because of the act of the Charged Official.”

6. The Disciplinary Authority after having considered the stand taken by the delinquent government employee and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer passed the order of dismissal from service on 27th September 2006.

7. This is too well settled a law that the writ Court shall not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the departmental authority in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the findings of fact recorded by the departmental authority are perverse. This shall also be a ground for the writ Court to interfere in the matter if the departmental authority had ignored a vital evidence or taken into consideration some irrelevant material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors.” 1964 AIR 477 held that an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by the writ Court but an error of fact howsoever grave it may appear to be cannot be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution,