High Court Reiterates Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters; Cannot Re-appreciate Evidence or Proportionality Unless 'Shockingly Disproportionate' - Jharkhand HC - 2024-01-05

Court Orders & Legal Analysis.

High Court Upholds CISF Constable's Removal, Reinforcing Limits of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the removal from service of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Constable, reiterating the limited scope of the High Court's power of judicial review in departmental disciplinary matters. The court emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate authority, re-appreciate evidence, or interfere with the proportionality of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate or based on no evidence.

The judgment, delivered by Justice RajeshShankar , came in response to a petition filed by a Constable seeking to quash the orders of removal from service and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal and revision by CISF authorities.

Case Background:

The petitioner, a Constable appointed in 2009, faced departmental proceedings following an incident on January 9, 2019. Charges against him included reporting for night shift duty late (by 10 minutes), allegedly in an intoxicated state, and misbehaving with and slapping two senior officers, the Shift Incharge and the Company Havaldar Major. A third charge cited his previous record of six minor punishments for misconduct and indiscipline between 2017 and 2018.

Following an inquiry where the charges were found proved, the disciplinary authority (Commandant, CISF Unit, CCL Kargali) ordered his removal from service on June 1, 2019. His subsequent appeal to the Deputy Inspector General and revision petition to the Inspector General were also dismissed.

Arguments Presented:

The petitioner's counsel argued that the removal from service was highly disproportionate, claiming the primary charge was merely reporting 10 minutes late. He contended that the medical report did not confirm intoxication and that key witnesses presented during the inquiry were unreliable or hearsay, not present at the scene of the alleged slapping incidents. He also argued that including previous minor punishments amounted to double jeopardy.

Conversely, the respondents (CISF authorities) maintained that the petitioner reported late in an intoxicated condition and physically assaulted his superiors, which is a grave act of indiscipline in a disciplined force. They highlighted that the petitioner had accepted the charges and tendered an apology in his initial reply. They argued that a proper departmental inquiry was conducted with due opportunity provided to the petitioner, and the punishment was commensurate with the severity of the misconduct, particularly considering his previous disciplinary record. They denied the claim of double jeopardy, stating that previous punishments were considered as part of his overall conduct, not as fresh charges.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles:

Justice Shankar meticulously reviewed the arguments and the departmental proceedings. The court placed significant reliance on several Supreme Court judgments defining the parameters of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, including:

• State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723): Held that the High Court is not an appeal court over departmental decisions and is concerned with whether the inquiry was by a competent authority, followed procedure, and adhered to natural justice. It cannot re-appreciate evidence.
• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749): Established that judicial review reviews the manner of the decision, not its correctness. Findings based on 'some evidence' cannot be interfered with, even if technical rules of evidence are not strictly followed. Interference is warranted if proceedings violate natural justice, statutory rules, or findings are based on no evidence or are so arbitrary that no reasonable person could reach them.
• Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610): Listed specific instances where the High Court shall not interfere in disciplinary proceedings, such as reappreciating evidence, questioning adequacy or reliability of evidence, interfering if there is some legal evidence, correcting errors of fact, or interfering with proportionality unless it shocks the conscience.
• State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580): Stressed that interference with punishment quantum is limited to exceptional cases. Punishment shouldn't be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the court's conscience. Factors like the nature of the force, the duty, past conduct, and gravity of misconduct are relevant for proportionality.
• UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775): Reiterated that courts shouldn't substitute their opinion on punishment unless discretion suffers from illegality, irregularity, or shocks the conscience, considering host of factors including the discipline required in the establishment.

The court noted that the chargesheet clearly detailed the allegations. Crucially, the petitioner, in his initial defence statement, had not denied the charges but tendered an apology and sought sympathy. This, the court observed, amounted to him not controverting the charges.

Regarding the natural justice argument, the court found that the petitioner was given a chargesheet, replied to it, participated in the inquiry, had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and was served with the inquiry report before the final order. Thus, principles of natural justice were complied with.

On the challenge to evidence, the court, citing precedent, stated that discrepancies in evidence do not amount to a case of "no evidence." Re-appreciation of evidence is outside the scope of judicial review.

Concerning proportionality, the court acknowledged the petitioner's argument but emphasized that the alleged misconduct involved not just being late but also misbehaving and assaulting superior officers within a disciplined force like the CISF. Considering the grave nature of indiscipline in such a force and the petitioner's prior record (which the court clarified was considered as background, not fresh charges, thus not double jeopardy), the punishment of removal did not shock the conscience of the court.

Decision and Implications:

Based on the established legal principles and the facts of the case, the High Court concluded that it found no merit in the writ petition. The court held that the disciplinary authority's findings were based on evidence, the inquiry process followed the rules and natural justice, and the punishment imposed, while severe, was not shockingly disproportionate given the context of a disciplined force and the nature of the proven misconduct.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the removal from service. The judgment reinforces the significant deference shown by courts to the findings and discretion of disciplinary authorities in departmental inquiries, particularly within uniformed services, unless there is a clear procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or findings based on no evidence. It reiterates that courts do not function as appellate bodies to re-evaluate the merits of the evidence or the appropriateness of the punishment.