The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, and the court should not substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary and appellate authorities unless the findings are based on no evidence, misreading of evidence, or acceptance of inadmissible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(1) Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Ajai Kumar Singh and Ms. Shataxi Shukla, Advocates for the appellants, Dr. L. P. Misra, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Rohit Agarwal, Sri Chinmay Mishra and Sri Anant Khanna for the respondent No.1 and Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel representing respondent No.2 and 3 and perused the records available before us on this Special Appeal.

(2) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, this intra-Court appeal questions the judgment and order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No. 14919 of 2021 filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner has been allowed and the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 14.08.2019 and the resolution of the Cantonment Board dated 14.08.2019 as also the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal against the punishment order, dated 01.06.2021 have been quashed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has also directed the appellants-Cantonment Board, Meerut to re-instate the respondent No.1/petitioner in service alongwith all consequential benefits on the post on which he was working prior to his dismissal.

(3) Learned Senior Advocate representing the appellants-respondents has vehemently argued that the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.04.2023 is not sustainable for the reason that the learned Single Judge has apparently exercised his jurisdiction beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order of dismissal from service passed after conclusion of full-fledged departmental inquiry. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants-respondents that the learned Single Judge has acted as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority inasmuch as that the learned Single Judge has substituted his own findings to the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority by appreciating the evidence afresh which is not permissible so far as judicial review of matters relating to disciplinary proceedings is concerned.

(4) It has also been argued that in absence of any finding returned by the learned Single Judge regarding any flaw in the procedure followed during the course of conducting the inquiry, punishment order could not have been set aside. He has thus argued that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.1/petitioner were conducted in terms of the provisions contained in the Rules regulating the disciplinary proceedings and since no irregularity or infringement of any legal provisions have been pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the order under appeal is not sustainable.

(5) Sri Mishra has also contended that once the evidence available on record has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and the findings returned by the disciplinary authority in respect of 'misconduct' are supported by the evidence available on record, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of dismissal from service cannot be justified. It has also been contended by the learned Senior Advocate representing the appellants-petitioners that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are not supported by evidence available on record and thus the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained specially for the reason that different acts complained of against the respondent No.1/petitioner clearly amounted to misconduct in terms of the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In this view, the submission is that the order under appeal is not sustainable and accordingly the appeal deserves to be allowed.

(6) Per contra, Dr. L.P. Misra assisted by other learned counsel representing respondent No.1/petitioner has argued that the learned Single Judge was conscious of the legal position that judicial review cannot be a substitute of an appellate jurisdiction