The main legal point established is the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, emphasizing the authority of the disciplinary authority as the sole judge of facts and the high threshold for interference in service matters.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority.

3. Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2404 of 2012 and this Court, after hearing the parties, was pleased to remit the matter back for reconsideration on the point of quantum of punishment. Thereafter, the reasoned order was passed and the order of dismissal was affirmed.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Assailing the impugned order dated 07.06.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the matter was remitted back to the respondents for considering the same on the point of quantum of punishment but in spite of the same, the order of the Court was not considered and the earlier order passed by the respondents has been reiterated. Learned counsel further argues that 8 persons similarly situated to the present petitioner have been granted lesser punishment and the petitioner along with one another has been slapped with the punishment of dismissal, which is admittedly a harsh punishment. Learned counsel submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, impugned order dated 07.06.2021 is fit to be quashed and set along with earlier order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.

5. Countering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to learned AAG-II submits that no new plea has been raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner raised all these points which were considered and thereafter, the matter was remitted back. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that during the course of arguments and while passing the order of punishment, it was specifically mentioned that petitioner had earlier duped the Court by giving wrong facts and placing wrong documents before this Court so as to impress the Court that in similar proceedings different orders have been passed, whereas, the facts remains that all the Constables were proceeded differently and thereafter, on different consideration, order has been passed. Learned counsel submits that allegation levelled against the petitioner is theft of 3 SLR Riffles, 2 Magazines and 30 nos. of live cartridges, which is serious in nature and therefore, rightly the order of dismissal has been passed, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority. Learned counsel further argues that at this juncture no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition.

6. Having gone through the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons:

I) Earlier after hearing the parties at length and considering every aspects, the matter was remitted back to the respondent-authorities for reconsideration. At the time of reconsideration it was found that petitioner had placed wrong facts before this Court due to which matter was remitted back.

II) The petitioner belongs to a disciplined force and any indiscipline cannot be accepted in a disciplined force.

III) It has been brought in the enquiry report that petitioner was guilty of the charges and the same was proved by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter, affirmed by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held thus;

“The High Court does not act as appellant authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to the decision of a case on merit as a