The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions and highlighted the principles of judicial review, emphasizing that it is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 09.06.2015 contained in Memo No.946, whereby, in a Departmental Proceeding No.6/15, whereby punishment was imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is of withholding of increment for one year, which would be treated to be equivalent to two black marks. Further, the appellate order dated 27.11.2007, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, is also under challenge.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to be punished. It is his case that in the Departmental Proceeding, it is alleged that the girl had gone to the police station with the complaint of some sexual assault, but, in the Departmental Proceeding, witnesses had stated that the girl had come to the police station only to recover the mobile phone and the bicycle of her boyfriend. There is nothing to suggest that she was harassed and police did not cooperate in recording her statement. That being so, there was no role of the petitioner, which warrants punishment.

4. Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, wherein a girl came in a semi-nude state with an allegation of sexual harassment by some persons, but, this petitioner did not show any concern nor did lodge any First Information Report. Girl, thereafter went missing, which led to a public outcry, then only this petitioner woke up from slumber. This action of the petitioner, definitely warrants punishment. As per the State-respondents, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be harsh and there is no procedural illegality or irregularity, thus, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the punishment.

5. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the records.

6. In this writ petition, the punishment order in a Departmental Proceeding and the consequent appellate order is under challenge. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a Court of appeal. The scope of interference, is very limited in a judicial review of administrative action. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Gujarat versus Hitendra Vrajlal Ashara reported in (2014) 15 SCC 614 has observed that it is a well-accepted principle of law that the High Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate court and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. Further, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others versus Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 thereof has held as under:-

24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctne