Judicial review under Article 226 does not involve reappraising evidence or substituting disciplinary authority's findings unless punishment shocks conscience.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the 4^th respondent in passing the order dated 31.07.2019 by which he was awarded punishment in the form of penalty of “reduction of pay by three stages from Rs.29,300/- to Rs.26,800/- in pay level-3 for a period of three years with immediate effect. It is further directed that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increments and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay” and the action of the 3^rd respondent in confirming the said order in appeal vide order dated 27.11.2019 and the further action of the 2^nd respondent in rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the 3^rd respondent confirming the order of the 4^th respondent vide order dated 02.01.2020.

3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that on 04.02.2019 though, there was some altercation between the petitioner and one Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay, his higher up working as SI/EXE with regard to petitioner not wearing cap properly and swinging the beret cap on hand by him, the said issue was resolved on the same day, when he was counselled by the higher authorities and on petitioner tendering apology. Petitioner further contended that though the alleged altercation had taken place between him and the SI/EXE on 05.02.2019, outside the work place, the respondents in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, have initiated disciplinary action by issuing charge memo containing two Articles of charges claiming as if it is continuation to the incident that had taken place on the previous night while on duty; and that without considering the evidence let in during the enquiry proceeding had found him guilty and awarded him penalty.

4. It is further contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority was not considered in correct perspective, and the appellate authority merely relied on the findings recorded in the final order passed by the 4^th respondent and confirmed the order awarding penalty on him.

5. The petitioner further contended that the 2^nd respondent before whom revision is filed, also failed to consider that the articles of charges levelled against the petitioner particularly Article of Charge-1 having been closed on 04.02.2019 itself, the 4^th respondent could not have initiated disciplinary action thereagainst while in respect of Articles of Charge-2, the same being not proved, the petitioner could not have visited with penalty and erred in dismissing the revision.

6. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the punishment was awarded to him by disregarding the defence witness statement, whereby the said witness had stated of he having seen the petitioner and another person arguing angrily in loud voice, but not manhandling anyone, which itself goes to show that a false case of manhandling has been foisted against him; and also that the prosecution witness who is stated to have witnessed the petitioner beating the SI in uniform on 05.02.2019, in his cross examination having denied to state the name and address of the person, only goes to show that the entire proceedings by which penalty is awarded to him is based on hearsay evidence and thus cannot be sustained.

7. The petitioner further contended that the appellate authority and revisional authority failed to consider the aforesaid aspect despite being specifically raised by the petitioner and therefore, the orders of the 3^rd and 2^nd respondents affirming the order of the 4^th r