Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to checking the decision-making process; courts cannot reassess evidence unless penalties are shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing charge sheet dated 03.01.2000, order of penalty of dismissal from service dated 27.12.2000 imposed upon the petitioner pursuant to a departmental enquiry along with order dated 17.05.2004 passed by the appellate authority whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against penalty order has been dismissed. The petitioner contends that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is excessive, harsh, and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

2. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Police Department on 01.11.1996 on probation and was confirmed in the year 1998. In contemplation of departmental enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.10.1999 and thereafter, by way of issuing charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958'), he was subjected to a regular departmental enquiry on charges of misconduct.

3. The charge sheet contained two charges, with the allegations that while he was posted at Police Lines, Ajmer in the year 1999, during that period, on the morning of 30.09.1999, he was on duty at Police Lines, Ajmer along with other personnel, performing parade ground duty. Shri Bhanwarlal, ASI, was supervising the work. At that time, he separated himself from the team and refused to perform the duty and also instigated other personnel not to carry out the work. Even after orders from Shri Bhanwarlal, S.I., In-charge of the duty, he did not perform the work and left the parade ground. In this regard, an entry of indiscipline against him was recorded in the Police Lines General Diary vide Report No. 2615 dated 30.09.1999. Charge No. 2 levelled against petitioner was that on 10.09.1999, in Ramganj area near the Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, despite not being on duty there, he stopped a person named Shri Pawan Garg while he was riding a scooter. Acting contrary to rules, petitioner searched his scooter. Petitioner abused him and behaved in indecent manner. Petitioner then took him to Bhagwan Ganj Police Outpost and detained him there for one hour. Due to this incident, news was published in a daily newspaper, which tarnished the image of the Police Department. Such act of the petitioner was indicative of arbitrariness, negligence and indiscipline.

4. Admittedly aforesaid charge-sheet was duly served upon the petitioner and he was afforded full opportunity to submit a reply, to participate in the enquiry proceedings, to cross- examine witnesses, and to lead defence evidence. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer returned findings holding the charges proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s representation, imposed the impugned penalty of dismissal from vide order dated 27.12.2000. The appellate authority thereafter dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the said decision vide order dated 17.05.2004.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned penalty order is liable to be set aside as it is vitiated by arbitrariness, discrimination, non-application of mind and violation of the principles of proportionality, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has imposed a harsh and excessive punishment wholly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of th