The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that it is not meant to venture into the merits of the case like an appellate authority and that the punishment imposed must be commensurate with the charges levelled.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mr. Bharat Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(A) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.06.2019 passed in Respondent No. 5 (Annexure-4) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed from service for the negligence in duty (sleeping) which is highly dis-appropriate against the offence which the petitioner committed and also ignoring the facts and circumstances in which such offence has been committed by the petitioner and as this is the first chance when the petitioner has been caught by his serious and at least one chance may be provided to the petitioner to improve his conduct as other have been provided and the petitioner has been left out to the reasons best known to the respondents.

(B) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions for quashing of the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 04 (Annexure-05 of the main writ petition) whereby and where-under the learned appellate authority has please to dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(C) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions for quashing of the order dated 28-02-2011 passed by the revisional authorities i.e. the Respondent No. 03 whereby and where-under the learned revisional authority has also dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner (filed in supplementary petition as annexure 6).”

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order of punishment of dismissal from service which according to the petitioner, is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled and found proved against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed as constable on 11.02.2006 and was served with a charge memo dated 24.11.2009 alleging that the petitioner was posted at BCCL unit, Dhanbad area no. 5 on 24.10.2009 from 17:00 hours to 05:00 hours at Bansjora Workshop and at 4:00 hours in the morning, he was found sleeping on a table and had kept below his arms and ammunition.

6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner denied the allegation levelled against him by filing a reply and he had tried to explain that the petitioner had fainted while he was on duty due to long hours. He submits that the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry where the petitioner duly participated and ultimately, he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. He submits that the explanation of the petitioner was not duly considered and dismissal from service merely on account of sleeping while on duty for some time, is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled. He submits that in his explanation, he has also submitted that he was found doing his duty properly even till 03.40 hours in the morning, as was mentioned in his reply.

7. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner filed appeal. The appeal was also dismissed and the revision was also dismissed. He submits that the authorities have not considered the fact that the punishment given to the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that altogether two charges were levelled against the petitioner; not only he was found sleeping on duty at 4:00 hours in the morning by keeping his arms below the table, but it was also alleged that he had pointed the rifle at his senior and thereafter, he had run away. She submits that the allegations were proved against the petitioner in