Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit interference with departmental proceedings unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard the parties.

2. By filing this writ application, the petitioner who is a Head Constable in CISF prays to quash the order dated 22.04.2014 by which he was punished and also the appellate order dated 14.06.2014 by which the appeal was dismissed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that punishment inflicted upon the petitioner i.e. the punishment of dismissal is harsh, considering the fact that the petitioner has served the force for long 32 years. He submits that only on a private complaint departmental proceeding was initiated by the respondents. He denies the allegations of bigamy which has been levelled against him. He submits that there is no lady called Rina Devi, who is alleged to be the second wife of this petitioner. Thus, the entire proceeding is based on misconception of facts.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint. The complaint was that the petitioner had married second time without taking any permission from the authorities during the life time of the first wife when the petitioner has not legally divorced his first wife. He submits that this act is a misconduct, thus the petitioner was proceeded against. She further submits that the facts that the petitioner had married for the second time would be evident from the conduct of the petitioner as in 2002 he has changed the nomination in service records and included the name of the second wife as a nominee. She further submits that there is no procedural irregularity or illegality in the process, thus, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere in the departmental proceedings and the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. As per the counsel, the quantum of punishment is also not disproportionate.

5. After hearing the arguments of the parties, I find that petitioner has been dismissed from service. He was serving as Head Constable in CISF from 1982. A Charge of bigamy was levelled against this petitioner and departmental proceeding was initiated and inquiry report was submitted. In the enquiry, the first wife of the petitioner appeared as a witness and stood by the complaint. There were other witnesses who were also examined. Documentary evidences were also furnished. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry held that charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved. One of the materials to prove the charge is the change of nomination in service record made by the petitioner as the second wife Rina Devi was made the nominee, changing the first nominee. The fact finding authority during the enquiry has found the charge against the petitioner to be proved. Once the charge is proved, the disciplinary authority has to take a decision on the quantum of punishment. After following the procedure laid down by the law i.e issuing notice, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service.

6. It is well settled that in a judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution, the Court cannot sit in appeal. The Court should not be concerned with the decision, but the decision making process. The court cannot substitute its own view after reappraising the entire evidence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 632 has dealt with the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution while dealing with a departmental proceeding. At paragraph 63 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

“63. It may be clarified at the outset that to satisfy itself that no injustice has been meted out to the appellant, the High Court was required to examine the decision-making process and not just the final outcome. In other words, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual findings recorded in the departmental proceedings as long as those findings are re