High Court interference in disciplinary proceedings against disciplined force members limited to natural justice violations, no evidence, or shockingly disproportionate punishment; dismissal for unauthorized absence and firearms mishandling upheld.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment as contained in Memo No.1918 dated 26.03.2007 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service after departmental enquiry.

2.1. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to decide his Departmental Appeal dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suffering from mental ailment, as a result of which he was absent from duty. She submits that absence of the petitioner is neither deliberate nor wilful, thus, the punishment of dismissal imposed against the petitioner is absolutely harsh. She further submits that considering the mental status of the petitioner, the impugned order should be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State submits that a proper Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after the charge-sheet was issued to him. He submits that even after opportunity being given, the petitioner did not appear before the Disciplinary Authority. He submits that the charge is grave as the petitioner abandoned his duty without depositing the firearms. He submits that the petitioner left the firearms in the office and took some ammunitions with him which were later on deposited by one Dwarika Ram. So far as mental ailment of the petitioner is concerned, he submits that documents to that effect were never put before the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer and thus the documents which were not placed before the Enquiry Officer, cannot be considered by this Court. He lastly submits that even the Appeal was filed after a lapse of sixteen years, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 03.07.2023.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that the petitioner is a Constable. He was dismissed from service and his order of dismissal is under challenge. The dismissal is consequent upon the Disciplinary Proceeding.

6. In a Disciplinary Proceeding, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority to reappreciate the evidence and materials.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 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 Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao [1963 AIR SC 1723], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review 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 the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can also interfere. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court t