The appellate authority's power to modify punishment in disciplinary matters and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders in RoC.No.363/2015/C1, dated 14.8.2019 on the file of the first respondent and RoC.No.7115/2011/Inq., dated 31.10.2014 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits to the petitioner with all attended benefits and to fix corresponding pension within a reasonable time.

1. The writ petitioner here challenges the affirmation by the appellate authority in the High Court on its administrative side of the misconduct on the part of the petitioner as held by the disciplinary authority in the order dated October 31, 2014.

2. An earlier order of dismissal from service was revoked by an order dated April 1, 1999 and the writ petitioner resumed his position on or about July 2, 1999, whereupon he was transferred to Mettur on September 30, 2000. The writ petitioner was again suspended from service on November 30, 2004, which suspension was subsequently revoked. He was next suspended on March 2, 2006, which also came to be revoked. He was again absent from duty from October 1, 2007 for a considerable length of time.

3. At the time that the matter was considered by the Principal District Judge, Salem, the writ petitioner was aged about 55 years and the grounds that he proffered to justify his conduct pertained to the difficult circumstances faced in his family. The disciplinary authority perceived that the absence for long periods in violation of the rules did not entitle the writ petitioner any leniency. Indeed, the writ petitioner had almost nothing to say in respect of his long periods of absence and it is recorded in the order impugned dated October 31, 2014 that he merely pleaded for mercy. The disciplinary authority observed that the writ petitioner had not served in any one Court regularly during the entire period of his service from the date of his appointment on August 31, 1985. An order of dismissal from service followed.

4. The initial ground urged by the appellant is that notwithstanding the subsequent appeal, the Registrar-General of this Court by a terse and unreasoned order communicated the veritable rejection of the appeal, albeit the punishment being reduced to removal from service.

5. When the matter was taken up earlier, it was submitted on behalf of the High Court administration that usually such matters are referred to a sitting Judge of the High Court or a Committee of Judges and such Judge or Committee decides the appeal.

6. In the present case, a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges of the High Court decided the matter by or about April, 2019 affirming the finding of grave misconduct on the part of the delinquent. It is necessary that the reasons indicated in the common order of the appellate authority be noticed:

“Appeal petition and records perused. The disciplinary authority PDJ, Salem in his order dated 31.10.2014 has given detailed reasons for his decision. The appeal petitioner service record disclosed his incorrigible conduct of unauthorized absence on several occasions. After the dismissal from service and later reinstatement pursuant to order of the High Court in W.P.1958/93 dt 01.04.99, has not mend his conduct. He again stayed away from reporting duty from 01/10/07. ...”

However, two of the members on the Appellate Committee were of the opinion that the punishment ought to be modified from dismissal from service to the lesser removal from service.

7. The writ petitioner says that the appellate order does not reveal the consideration of the grounds that had been urged by the appellant. The appellant almost suggests that the appellate authority merely accepted the findings of the disciplinary authority without applying its independent mind to the matters in issue.

8. It must be remembered at this stage that the scope of judicial review w