The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision on compulsory retirement, emphasizing limited judicial review regarding the appropriateness of punishment imposed, unless it is found to be shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 21-11-2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1843/2011, whereby and whereunder, the challenge made to the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant/writ petitioner vide order dated 15- 02-2006 and its affirmation in appeal and revision vide orders dated 08-04-2006 and 21/22-03-2007, has been dismissed.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force and was posted at various places during his 30 years of service. It has been stated that on 05-08-2005, when the writ petitioner was doing “A” shift duty from 5:00AM to 01:00PM at Area No. 11, Birsa Bridge, Dhanbad along with another constable, namely, A.K. Jha and as they were being relieved from duty, a raid was conducted and from the possession of constable A.K. Jha, a sum of Rs. 1250/- was recovered. A disciplinary proceeding was started against constable A.K. Jha as well as the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner was suspended for the charges that he could not control the illegal act committed by constable A.K. Jha. The writ petitioner, on being served with the memo of charge, had denied the charge by filing a suitable reply in response to the same. Being dissatisfied with the reply, a departmental inquiry was instituted. On submission of the inquiry report, the respondent no. 5 had passed a final order dated 15-02-2006, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitioner was awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect further holding that the writ petitioner shall be entitled to 80% pension and gratuity as admissible to him on the date of compulsory retirement. An appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement before the respondent no. 4 which was dismissed vide order dated 08- 04-2006. The order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the writ petitioner before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3924/2006 which was dismissed as withdrawn enabling the writ petitioner to prefer a revision application. The writ petitioner had filed the revision application which was dismissed by the respondent no. 03 vide order dated 21/22-03-2007. All these orders were challenged before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1843/2011 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21-11-2022 which is the order impugned to the present appeal.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Peeyush Krishna Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had an unblemished career and that nothing was recovered from his possession. It was Constable A.K. Jha who was the person responsible for illegally collecting money and an amount of Rs. 1250/- was recovered from him. It has been submitted by way of an alternative argument that the Disciplinary Authority has awarded a harsh punishment to the writ petitioner which is not in commensuration to the charge framed against him.

5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI has submitted that the departmental proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and even the writ petitioner has failed to point out any procedural irregularity which has prejudiced him. The writ petitioner, being in Command of the shift, was himself involved in collection of money in the Morcha with the active connivance of Constable A.K. Jha and the Enquiry Officer had