Point of Law: High Court may undoubtedly interfere where departmental authorities have held proceedings against delinquent in a manner inconsistent with rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

i) “That the charge memo AnnexufreP-1, punishment order Annexure P-6 and appellate order Annexure P-8 may kindly be quashed.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a Memo was served upon the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-1, informing him that the Department intended to hold an inquiry against him on the Article of Charges appended therewith. The petitioner was called upon to submit his response thereto within the time frame mentioned in the Memo dated 18.01.2018. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner was that, in the year 2017, when, he was serving as a Driver in the Development Block Rampur, he had violated the orders of the Block Development Officer, dated 26.04.2016, of not consuming liquor on duty and further on 27.04.2017, in the evening hours, he had taken the official vehicle to his residence without permission and had misused the same and had also not filled the Log book. It was further the allegation against the petitioner that on 08.06.2017, he was apprehended in an inebriated position by the Police of Police Station Rampur Bushahr, while driving official vehicle bearing registration No.HP-06C-0137 and when he was subjected to medical test, he was found to be under the influence of liquor. The petitioner denied these allegations in terms of reply filed by him appended with the petition as Annexure P-2.

3. As the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the response of the petitioner, therefore, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his inquiry report Annexure P-4. As per the inquiry report, the petitioner was found guilty of consuming liquor while on duty, but, it was further mentioned in the inquiry report that other allegations against the petitioner were not substantiated. After affording an opportunity to put-forth his response to the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, in terms of order dated 24.05.2019 Annexure P-6 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the petitioner and his suspension period was ordered to be treated as dies non. The appeal filed by the petitioner also met with the same fate in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority Annexure P-8, dated 02.09.2019. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the allegation against the petitioner was never proved in the course of inquiry. Learned counsel argued that the allegation against the petitioner was that on 08.06.2017, he was found driving the official vehicle in an inebriated position by the Police of Police Station Rampur Bushahr at Dakolar, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., but fact of the matter is that on the fateful day, he had taken half day’s leave and was at his house on account of some function from where, he was taken away by the police. He has submitted that as the Department had failed to establish in the course of inquiry that the petitioner was apprehended by the police while driving the official vehicle on the fateful day, therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority was bad in law and the same was liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand has defended the decision of the statutory authorities and submitted that the petitioner cannot ask this Court to re-appreciate the evidence as the scope of judicial review was not akin to an Appellate Court. He has further argued that as full opportunity was granted to the petitioner to put forth his case in the course