Judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited to ensuring adherence to natural justice and does not permit reappraisal of evidence or substitution of views if a reasonable conclusion is reached.

ORDER :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure-5 to this writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service for absence without leave with effect from 3.3.2014 to 26.6.2014 and also other penalty was inflicted upon him. It has also been prayed to quash the order dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service but increment of the petitioner was stopped for two years. He further prays for setting aside the entire departmental proceeding and quashing the order of the I.G. and prays for grant of all consequential benefits treating the petitioner to be in service continuously.

3. From the pleading of the parties, I find that Annexure-5 is the order dated 20.12.2014 by which, the petitioner has been removed from service. Annexure-7 is the order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby, the Appellate Authority considering the entire issue has reinstated the petitioner modifying the punishment to stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and further directed that the petitioner will not get the salary for the period when he was absent unauthorizedly i.e. from 3.3.2014 to 26.6.2014. Further, it has been ordered that for the period between his dismissal and reinstatement, he will not get his salary as the petitioner has not worked.

4. The petitioner, being a constable in CRPF, went on leave for 15 days. This leave was permitted by the higher official. The petitioner overstayed from 3.3.2014 to 26.6.2014 taking a ground that he was ill, thus he could not join. Due to unauthorized absence, he was proceeded against and vide order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure-5), the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal from service. The petitioner challenged the same before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considering the entire aspect held that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absence from 3.3.2014 to 26.6.2014. The Appellate Authority also gave a finding that inspite of communication, the petitioner did not respond and neither informed his superior about his health condition or the fact that he was undergoing treatment. The Authority further taking into consideration the unblemished career of the petitioner and the fact that the punishment of removal is too harsh, passed an order of reinstatement of the petitioner but modified the punishment. As per the Appellate order, the punishment was modified to the extent that his annual increment for two years will be withheld without cumulative effect and the petitioner will not get the salary for the period which he was absent unauthorizedly i.e. from 3.3.2014 to 26.6.2014. The petitioner also preferred revision against the Appellate Order, which was also dismissed.

5. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while considering a departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in (2021) 14 SCC 735 at paragraph 21.1 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review on the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere where