The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process, and the punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct, considering the gravity of the offense.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellant who was employed with Jharkhand Police faced the departmental enquiry on the charge that he made dishonest withdrawals for the months of March 2009, September 2009, October 2009, November 2009 and January 2010 while he was retaining official accommodation. In the Departmental Proceeding No. 169 of 2010, three witnesses were examined by the department to establish the charge of dishonest withdrawal of house allowance by the appellant. The enquiring officer submitted a report on 11th August 2010 rendering an opinion that the delinquent employee appears to be guilty of committing the charged misconduct. The disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice on 30th September 2010 providing an opportunity to the appellant to put forth his defence, why he be not dismissed from service. By an order dated 19th October 2010, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of dismissal from service with further stipulation that the delinquent employee shall not be entitled for full pay and allowances except the subsistence allowance which was paid to him during the period of suspension. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 7th May 2011.

2. By an order dated 6th November 2015 the writ Court dismissed W.P.(S) No. 5406 of 2012 observing as under :

“7. After having gone through the records and on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference in view of the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:

(I) Admittedly, on the basis of allegations, charges has been framed and the enquiry has been conducted in which the petitioner has been found guilty by the enquiry officer. Basing on the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad (respondent no. 4) has passed the order of dismissal from service, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority (respondent no.3), the Deputy Inspector General of Police and also the memorial petition filed by the petitioner which has been rejected by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand (respondent no.2).

(II) In the case in hand, in view of the seriousness of allegation and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and moreover the fact finding given by the enquiry officer based on the material on record cannot be interfered with, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310, specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below:

“15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions ………”

8. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and applying the aforesaid principles of Hon’ble Apex Court, as indicated hereinabove, the impugned order of dismissal dated 19.10.2010 passed by respondent no.4, vide Annexure-18 of the writ application, and the orders of the appellate authority dated 07.05.2011 and 15.02.2012 passed by respondent no.3 and 2 respectively, vide Annexures-20/1 and 22/1 confirming the order of punishment passed by respondent no.4 do not warrant any interference by this Court.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.”

3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned SC (L&C)-II assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, the learned vice-counsel, would submit that in a properly constituted departmental enquiry finding of misconduct has been recorded against the appellant and while so no interference with t