High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18787/2012disposed of

Rajinderpal Kaur v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

2023-07-179 pages

#$%&'()*# +# ) (%%&() ,-- -#(. &$#/#&'#& () (0*&'(&0

)(0(&1 2)#3#&- #)3#!'45#(!.) (*(%%&() 2)+-%&6# !''

&$#/

(*(%%&() #0*)(.())(' %08)%*(%%&0((9%&6: #0 %&6.

)'()0'#('

;&&(< )(

=#&'#& ().(4(&'#(&&(< )(

"!8 ()(/ (*(%%&()8#0* &%0 ('8% )(34# .)30()4%5(#&'

()(#.()* &%0 ('8% '%03%00# .)30()4%5(8% )()0*(5%4((..(58% )(6#)' (0#3(#

(6#%&0#&''(*#)3(&# %&:

%) (# 0*)# 0.) :

#0 %&6. ()'() *#00(' 0 /0(:

'#('

> (&')0('&

>;&&(< )( ='

)%&6 (*(&'(&5 . %08)%*(%%&!8 ()(/

()'().'%03%00# #0/((&5&.%)3('#&')'()'#('

#0/((& 3'%.%(' ((<(&.'%03%00# .)30()4%5(8% %33('%#((..(5

?(#)&('5 &0( .) (*(%%&()0 /3%0 #*(%%&() #'

*)# ('.) (#4(..%4( (#)0*()3%00%/ ( &$#/4()&3(&3* ((0!

8 #)(8%

%&6*.)0(#)5 %&6.)0( .

(3* 3(&#4(& (0#&'*)# ('

.)6)#&%&6(#)&(' (#4(.) (*()%'.)3

@! # .

*# (#4(.)3"

@!8% *# (#4(.)3 "

#&'*)(.%<%&6 () (#4(8% 0 33()4#5#%&.)3@ @

@ "

@ (0#%' (#4(#** %5#%&'#(' > @

@8#0)(533(&'('

#&'.)8#)'('/ ()%&5%*# . (-5 8 ()(%& (*(%%&()8#0 8)9%&6#0#(#5 ()%0)%5'

5#%&..%5();--=# %&'#.)8#)'(' (

(#4( #** %5#%& 4%'( (() '#(' " @

@ ( %)(5) '

5#%& (*#)3(&;--= &$#/0*() ( %5 &0) 5%&0!%%00#(' # ( %)(5)!8 8#0 (# )% 6)#& (#4(#&' (%&0) 5%&0)(:

%)(' # (#** %5#%&/(0 /3%('.)6)#&. (#4(# (#0"

'# 0/(.)( ('#( &8 %5 ((3* ((*)*0(0 (#4(-%&5(0 (*)*0(' (#4(&

@!0 (#00()(' # () (#4(#** %5#%&8#08(

8% %&%3(&

> @

@5&0%'()%&6 # (#** %5#%&%0)(:

%)('/(0#&5%&('%& ()30. ( %5 &0) 5%&0- (#**(#)0 #4( (. (5 &) &

@ (%)(5)!& ( () #&'!.)8#)'(' (#** %5#%&. ( *(%%&() ( 4()&3(& & "

@ ( -(5)(#) '

5#%& (*#)3(&)#%0('#:

() # ()#** %5#%& #0/((&0(& (-#( 4()&3(&& "

@#&' ()(.)(!#)(4%0(' (#4(#** %5#%&/(#09('

.)0%&5( (*()%'.)3

.)8 %5 (0*(5%# (#4( 8#0*)# ('.)!0'# )(#'

(<*%)('-%&5( (*(%%&() #'# )(#'

(.!

#**#)(&

0 ('%'&)(5(%4( (0#%'533 &%5#%&# 6 0 (0#(0 # 0 ( #' (./( %&' ()#'')(00.)(%6& &) 8% ()%&5%*# " %0 ()5#0( #8 (&0 ()( )&('/#59(4(&/(.)(53* (%&6 ..%4( (#)0 (#4(!0 ()(:

(0('$%&& >

B (*(%%&()8#0 #

8('$%&/ (-(5)(#) 4%'()'()'#('

(*(%%&() $%&('!8 ()( #.()#5 #)6(0 ((8#00()4(' *& ()& "

.) #4%&6*)5(('('&0( .(3* 3(&05 (3( (#4(8% 6(%&6 (0#3( 0#&5%&('

> 8

'/(#**0%(:

( (5 #)6(0 (4(

('#6#%&0 ()!

8 %5 )(#'0#0 &'()1

!""# $ %

& @ (%%&() )(* %(' ( 5 #)6( 0 (( 4%'( %0 (() '#('

)(%)('-..%5()8#0#**%&('5&' 5 (%&:

%) !8 /3%(' %0&:

%) (*)#.())(5)'%&6 (0 /3%00%&0. (&5 #)6( ..%5()#08(

#0. (*)0(5 %&#&' ( '/ (5 #)6(0#0#/4(*)4('

#6#%&0 (*(%%&()* . (&:

%) (*)8#03#'(#4#% #/ ( ( *(%%&()8 0 /3%(' ()/$(5%&0 A (%05%* %&#) )% *#00('8)'()0&

8% &'0@C

@ @

@#&'&'0@C

@ @ CB B& ( .%)0)'()8% &'0

@! ()(5)'(' # (*(%%&()%05&%&

#/0(&8(.

@#&' #0 ('%'&*#)%5%*#(%& (%&: %) #&'# * / %5&%5(8#0* / %0 ('%& (#'%&6&(80*#*()0/ 0 ('%'&0 /3%)(*

#&' ()(.)(!%8#0*)(0 3(' #0 (%0&%&()(0('%&40()4%5(#&' )'().)(34# 8#0*#00('8(.

@ & ()'()'#('

8% &'0B B!8 % ( ( #.)(0#%'.#508()(3(&%&('%'(&%5# #%& ()'()*#00('

(#) %()! (-(5)(#) %&49(0*8() &'()

(@;%<=. (

(0.

#&' )'()0 () '%03%00# .)3 0()4%5( ( *(%%&() #0 5 #

(&6('/ ()'()0/(.)( %0 )

?(#)&('5 &0( .) (*(%%&()0 /3%0 # ()( #0/((&# 53* ((&&#** %5#%&.3%&'8 % (*#00%&6 (* &%0 3(&)'()0( /3%0 # ( 5 #)6( 0 (( &8 ()( 3(&%&0 . *(%%&() /(%&6 5&%&

#/0(&.)3'

;#= ( .

) () 0 /3%0 # ( &:

%) (*) 8#0 & 5&0%'()('##

/ ('%05%* %&#) # )% &) (/$(5%&0 )#%0('/ (*(%%&()8()(5&0%'()('D ;/= (.

) ()0 /3%0 # (* &%0 3(&)'()5

'& #4(/((&*#00('8% )()0*(5%4((..(5D*#00%&6.)'(). )(34# #&' '%03%00# #)( 8

&8#))#&(' 2)(0!

*(%%&()5&%& (8)9#.() #4%&6)($%&(' ()'

%(0 ( '%05%* %&#) # )% #'#

8(' ()$%&#&'0 ('%'& (4(&#4#% ('.%4( (#)0 (#4( (&:

%) ..%5() #0 ( ' () %

.&6(%&6 () (#4(0#&5%&('/(.)( (#4%&6#0*() (5 #)6(0 ((#&' #0 '

.0 '(&06#..(5('0%&5(& # ()&#%4(#))#&6(3(&5

'/(3#'( ?(#)&('5 &0( 0 /3%0 # ('%05%* %&#) # )% #06&( /( &' (5 #)6(0 ((#&'*)5(('('*)(0 3( # (*(%%&() #0& )($%&('#&'%0&%&()(0('%&0()4%5(- 5 #5 )0(8#0&#4#% #/ ( ( )(0*&'(&0E%05%* %&#) )% B ()(0*&'(&0 #'.% (' (%))(*

(8)%*(%%&#&' #4( * #5('&)(5)'#& ())'()%00 ('/ ()%&5%*# -(5)(#) 8 0((30 #4()( (<#3%&('%0(#) %())'()'#('

#&'8 % ( * '%&6 ( '(5%0%&.)(34# #8#)'(' (*(%%&()! ()%&5%*# -(5)(#) 3#9(0 (* &%0 3(&)'()(..(5%4(.)3 ('#( ()'() #0/((&*#00('&#3(

?(#)&('5 &0( .) ()(0*&'(&00 /3%0 # (*(%%&()

@ %0&3)(%&()(0('%&0()4%5(#&' ()(.)(!0 ( #0)%6

/((&* &%0 ('

8% )'().'%03%00# #4(5&0%'()(' (0 /3%00%&0 )3*() 0# . ()'()0*#00('/ (%05%* %&#) )% !

#.()8 (#)0.

#&' ()'()'#('

! %0 ).%&'0 #&&(. ()'()0)(.()0 (%&:

%) 5&'

5('/ (&:

%) ..%5()) %0 &:

%) (*) ( 5 #)6(0 (4(

(' #)( '%..()(& .)3 ( 5 #)6( 3(&%&('%& (%3* 6&(')'().* &%0 3(&

(0 #&'B. (

(0.B

#%''8&#*)5('

)( .#'*%&6.#&%&:

%) #6#%&0#'( %&:

(&-#(3(&.

*#)%(0#)()(:

%)('/(0()4(' *& ('( %&:

(&8 %0 )(:

%)('0 /3% %0)(*)#&' (& (&:

%) ..%5() #0 (<#3%&( ( (6# % #&' (4()#5% . (5 #)6(0. ( '0 (5 #)6(0/(*)4('! (%05%* %&#) )% %0)(:

%)('

9%& (&:

%) (*)#&'%. (#6)((08% (&:

(*)! ( #0*#00* &%0 3(&)'()%&()30.

(@ 5&0%'()%&6 (6)#4% . (5 #)6(0 (*%&0#)(#4#% #/ ( 8% %38 %5 #)(/((<()5%0('%&'%..()(&5%)5 30#&5(0#&'

%&5

'%&6)(34# #&''%03%00# 8(4()! ()'().)(34#

%& (*)(0(&5#0(8#05&4()(''%03%00# & (0#3('#( & (%05%* %&#) )% *)(0 3%&6 # (*(%%&() #0 & $%&(' #&' %0 & %&()(0('%& 0()4%5(# ()!.#50#)( ()8%0( (05*(.%&().()(&5(%&(*#)3(&# &:

%) #0/((&8(

0( ('%0 %3%('& !!"# $$#!%&'()*+,$)'-$($ ./0 1 ! (*(< ) #0 ( '#0 &'()1

Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e.

the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f.

the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h.

the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i). re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

13.

The aforesaid law has been further approved by three judges Bench of the Supreme Court in '%($2#,)%( $2'3,( %45!(3'$# !%&'()* 6($( 2 / 70 ,8('9'!,(%$)').7 #0/((&#6#%& )(%()#('%& !!"# $$#!%&'()*,6($%$$%&/ 0 7 #0 ( '#0 &'()1

"28.

We are unable to commend the approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. There was no good reason for the High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer. This was clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, fell into an error by setting aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority."

14.

Thus, if we examine the present case in light of aforesaid well settled propositions of judicial review, we need not re-appreciate the Inquiry Report, which has been held by a competent authority. However, the Disciplinary Authority has clearly gone beyond the charge sheet and has been influenced by extraneous consideration. Once, the petitioner has participated in the inquiry and an Inquiry Report was available, it was incumbent upon the

Disciplinary Authority to examine the case of the petitioner with references to the charge sheet and the Inquiry Report. However, since it presumed that the petitioner is continuously absent from duty and is not interested in further serving the State, it proceeded to pass an erroneous punishment order. The findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority are based on no evidence. Such findings are un-sustainable in law and punishment awarded stands vitiated. Even the order passed after filing of writ petition by the Special Secretary on 21.10.2014 does not take into consideration the Inquiry Report and suffers from the same error, as above. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents cannot be upheld and is accordingly, quashed and set aside. 15.

During the course of arguments, it is informed by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner attained superannuation on 31.08.2016. 16.

Ordinarily, this Court would have directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order after examining the Inquiry Report. However, as more than seven years have elapsed, it would not be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors. 1995 SCC (6) 749 and considering that the charge framed against the petitioner is of proceeding on leave without sanction. Although, she had applied for the leave and has rejoined duties after returning back from leave, this Court deems it appropriate to put a quietus to the proceedings and in view of the charge being approved by the Inquiry Officer, award punishment of stopping of five grade increments with cumulative effect. The punishment will be effective for the five years preceding the date of retirement as the Inquiry Report was submitted in 2011. The petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement and consequential benefits of her service accordingly.

17.

Writ petition is partly allowed, as above.

,24 7%& :+ 3#3# ( ()0*(#9%&6C)(#0&('

(0C ( ())(*)#/ ( (0C