JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

RA-CW-59-2026

The applicant-petitioner through instant application is seeking review of order dated 11.11.2025 and to restore the main petition to its original number and stage.

For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed. The main case is restored to its original number and stage.

With the consent of both sides, the main case is taken on Board.

Main case

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner was holding rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector at the time of passing impugned order dated 28.07.2003. A team of police officers was deputed to produce two hardcore criminals before the Trial Court. Two unidentified boys attacked the undertrial prisoners. One undertrial prisoner died and another sustained injury. The respondent conducted a departmental inquiry alleging cowardness and negligence on the part of petitioner and his colleagues which led to aforesaid incident. They were found guilty of the alleged offence. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unknown persons fired in the Court premises while two undertrial prisoners were in the custody of the petitioner and three police constables. It was a populated area, thus, was impossible to fire at assailants. It could cause irreparable loss, thus, petitioner did not fire. There was no evidence of connivance, thus, awarded punishment was harsh.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court has no power to look into quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until Court finds that sentence awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence. It is further settled proposition of law that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities. In case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary authority has not considered any evidence on record or misread the evidence or procedure as prescribed by law has not been followed, the Court can interfere.

6. A two-judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617 while adverting to scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings has held that departmental authorities are fact finding authorities. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct.

7. In the case in hand, the authorities have duly followed prescribed procedure. There is proper appreciation of evidence on record. The petitioner was senior-most among the officers who were deputed to produce two undertrials before trial Court. He was found guilty of inaction. He did not perform his duty to protect undertrial prisoners who were in his custody. On account of his lapse, one undertrial died and another suffered severe injuries. In these facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate either to interfere with findings of authorities or look into quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner.

8. In the backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly hereby dismissed.

9. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.