Under Article 226, High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with punishment in departmental proceedings absent procedural flaws, no evidence, or shockingly disproportionate penalty, especially in uniformed services for prolonged absence.

JUDGMENT :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

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

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner who is a Police Constable challenges the order as contained in Memo No.6851 dated 22.07.2013 (Order No.5/13), whereby on conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had been dismissed from service. Further, the Appellate Order dated 23.03.2020 is also under challenge. The petitioner also prays for reinstatement.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that without following the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. As per him, the witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding in absence of petitioner. He lastly submits that the punishment imposed is too harsh.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner did not choose to appear in the entire proceeding. He further submits from the records that even the officials had gone to the house of the petitioner to serve the notices but the wife and the brother of this petitioner have stated that the petitioner always remains in intoxicated condition as he drinks in his house and even the petitioner has no interest to join duty in spite of efforts by his family members. He submits that being in a Disciplined Force, the petitioner should have maintained the discipline, and his long absence without any reason is sufficient to dismiss him. He lastly submits that there is no procedural illegality or irregularity in the entire process.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is in Uniformed service. He is a Police Constable. A person who is in a uniform service must maintain utmost discipline.

6. The allegation against the petitioner is that at about 10:10 A.M. on 06.12.2012, he was found absent from his duty. Charge-sheet was submitted on 19.12.2012. It is the case of the respondents that thereafter the petitioner never joined duty. When the charge-sheet was sent to the address of the petitioner, the petitioner did not appear in the entire departmental proceeding. Time and again opportunity was given to the petitioner but he did not avail the same. The witnesses were examined by the Department to prove the charge. The evidence clearly proves the charge against the petitioner. The enquiry report was furnished. A copy of the enquiry report was also sent to the address of the petitioner.

7. The Appellate Order suggests that one Police official namely Surendra Singh was sent to the residential house of the petitioner to give information about the case but the family members of this petitioner clearly stated that this petitioner regularly remains under the influence of alcohol and in spite of their best efforts, he is not going to attend his duties. The aforesaid facts clearly suggest that opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself but he did not avail the same. The second show cause notice was also issued but the situation remains the same. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed dismissing the petitioner from service as the charge was proved. 8. The Appeal was filed and the Appellate Authority in details considered the Appeal and thereafter dismissed the same. 9. In a departmental 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.

10. 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 A