Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with natural justice and assessing evidence; the High Court does not act as an appellate authority.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order of punishment dated 23.11.2019 thereafter the appellate order and thereafter the review order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices which were served to the petitioner requesting him to join the services has not been received by him. He further submits that the explanation given for his absence was not accepted by the respondents. The medical certificate which was issued were doubted by the respondents, which is absolutely illegal. As the petitioner was suffering from hepatitis, he could not attend his service and his absence was thoroughly justified. He submits that he had given intimation also, but same was not considered.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court cannot act as an Appellate Court. He submits that all the documents were proved and the petitioner participated in the full-fledged departmental enquiry. Every opportunity was given to the petitioner, and thereafter considering the case of the petitioner, punishment was imposed. The quantum of punishment was stoppage of two increments only. He submits that petitioner was absent from 20.05.2016. The Chargesheet/ Memorandum charge was issued on 13.09.2017, for his long absence, which was unauthorized. He further submits that letters and notices were issued to the petitioner to join but inspite of the same, he did not join. He submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has remained absent unauthorizedly and the disciplinary authority took into consideration, the said fact which is a misconduct.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is an employee of Central Coalfields Limited. He was absenting from duty with effect from 20.05.2016. Memorandum of charge was issued to him on the allegation of absenting from duty for such a long period, which is misconduct. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding wherein witnesses were examined and the documents were produced and proved. The misconduct of the petitioner was proved in the proceeding, thus, the petitioner was punished by the Disciplinary Authority. The punishment imposed was stoppage of two increments without any cumulative effect. Petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal stating that he was ill and he could not appear. He produced his medical document. The Appellate Authority also considered each and every point raised by him and thereafter, dismissed the appeal. The Review Application was also dismissed.

6. In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution while dealing with a departmental proceeding and punishment, the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. So long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence, the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, even if the said conclusion is a possibility. Reappreciation of evidence is not within the domain of judicial review.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umesh , reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563 at paragraph 22 has held as under:-

22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restr