In disciplinary proceedings, judicial review permits interference with disproportionate punishment quantum if shockingly harsh relative to misconduct, prior impeccable record, and parity, even without re-appreciating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1846 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the order dated 25.10.1999 removing the writ petitioner from service and all its subsequent orders have been quashed and set aside and the writ petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in service and the matter has been remanded to the concerned authority (respondent no.3 in the writ petition) to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment.

3. The factual narrative, in brief, is that on 17.01.1985 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable and he was posted in Durgapur Steel Plant for training. The petitioner during his service period was posted at various places and lastly in the year 1997, he was posted as a Constable in Bokaro Steel Plant. Vide memo no. 15014 dated 29.04.1999, the petitioner was submitted a charge sheet in which he was charged with gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty as on 09.03.1999 and 10.03.1999 during his ‘C’ shift duty, he had failed to prevent theft of about 100 kg. assorted 04 numbers of M.S. item from Bokaro Steel Plant. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 18.05.1999 denying the charges leveled against him. Initially, Shri S.K. Sinha, Inspector CISF was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 26.05.1999 and thereafter vide letter dated 24.06.1999, Shri Shyam Dutt, Inspector was appointed as an Inquiry Officer and lastly vide letter dated 03.07.1999, Shri B. Lakra, Inspector CISF was appointed as the third Inquiry Officer. It has been stated that on 30.08.1999, the enquiry report was submitted holding therein that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. The petitioner had submitted a reply on the enquiry report but vide order dated 25.10.1999, an order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 29-A, read with Rule 31(b) of the CISF Rules. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal from service was dismissed on 19.05.2000. This was followed up by a revision preferred by the petitioner before the Director General of Police, CISF, North Block, New Delhi and since the same was not being disposed of, the petitioner preferred a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3253 of 2001 and pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2001 passed in the said writ application, the revision application was rejected vide order dated 26.11.2002. The order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 25.10.1999 and all its subsequent orders were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1846 of 2014 and vide order dated 09.08.2021 all the orders under challenge were quashed and set aside and apart from the petitioner being ordered to be reinstated in service, the matter was remanded back to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order with respect to the quantum of punishment and the said order has been assailed before us by the Union of India.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in re-appreciating the evidence which it was precluded from doing. It has been submitted that no procedural lapses have been noticed and the principle of natural justice has also been diligently followed. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that preponderance o