JUDGEMENT

This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 27.03.2023 whereby the appellant’s W.P.No.13041/2021 having been dismissed, the penalty of reduction of rank and pay levied on him have been left un-interfered.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are not inclined to grant interference in the matter being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the charges having been framed, a disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the appellant and he was found guilty of certain misconduct. In writ jurisdiction, what needs to be ordinarily examined is the following:

“i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with ;

iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence…”

Learned Single Judge after perusing the material on record, has approached the matter specifically mentioning the above three postulates and thereby refused to grant relief to the delinquent. The intra court appeal against orders of the kind has its own limitations vide a seven Judge Bench decision of this Court TAMMANNA VS.

RENUKA, 2009 SCC ONLINE KAR 123 and therefore, we cannot undertake a full examination of the matter afresh, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record being demonstrated.

3. The power of judicial review of disciplinary action taken against a delinquent employee, undertaken by the writ courts is much restrictive and circumscribed. It cannot act as a court of appeal and therefore, in this appeal we too cannot. This view gains support from the decision of the Apex Court in DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, (2021) 2 SCC 612. Despite vociferous submissions, learned counsel for the appellant was not able to demonstrate the warrant for our interference in the matter. The explanation offered by the appellant for not attending the meeting of Principal Secretary of the Energy Department held on 17.09.2009, is hardly a plausible explanation for the grave lapse. Very strangely the appellant in his reply dated 22.09.2009 had stated “…I had to leave to my native place with my family on 17th evening. Therefore, I had to leave bit early because of the unpredictable traffic and left the meeting halfway…” The appellant then holding a High Office of Deputy General Manager in the Public Sector Undertaking namely, KREDL is rightly found to be guilty of the charge, to say the least.

4. It hardly needs to be reiterated that once the charges are held to be proved, what punishment the delinquent should be saddled with is essentially within the domain of Disciplinary Authority and a writ court cannot assume the power of such an Authority or of Appellate Authority to interfere with the same, when the punishment levied does not shock its conscience. The appellant was promoted to the post of DGM and therefore, on the ground of proven misconduct he has been reduced in rank to that of Assistant General Manager, in the discretion of the Competent Authority. In a recent decision of UNION OF INDIA VS. CONSTABLE SUNIL KUMAR (2023) 3 SCC 622, the Apex Court upheld dismissal of an employee who was found guilty of in subordination and indiscipline. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the KREDL is more than justified in pressing into service this Ruling in support of his contention for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The vehement submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 8.1(v) of Cadre, Recruitment, Probation, Promotion and Seniority Rules, 2001, mandates specification of the period of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale, does not impress us inasmuch as it is not a pure case that fits into the said Rule. Apparently, case of the appellant attracts Rule 8.1(vi) inasmuch there is a reduction in rank too and not only reduction to a lower stage in the time scale, as has been sought to be made out.

6. One more thing we