Bikram Pal v. Union Of India And Others
!"# !$%&%"'
( (
)*+ ,
* - +*(,* ,+
! !
"#$% &&&& * ,+ .(/0 12 ' !
(()*((+ % ,- $ .+.'(.(/ ,0 "(-
2/3 13
,- $ (4./(.(/ ,0 "/- 3
25
! ,- $ '/.+(.(/ ,0 "5- 3
26
( '6.5(..78 9 ! : (.'+"(.'43 '/;! 5/ $
3 3
(6 1 %
!
<
!: !
!8 / 1 %
('.5(.(( 1 1 =
!2
+..74.4/5( !! 8%
! ! !
3 !
!> 1
0 3
!
3
! $ ?> 1 $
1 .+.'(.(/ ,0 "(-9! : ! 1 1
!
!! 13
(4./(.(/ ,0 "/- =
3!
'/.+(.(/,0 "5- 5
3
1 3 !! !!3 3 0 1 % 3 0 !
13
!1!! !
3!! ! ! !! 3 13
6 ! !
!!3 ?> 1 $
0
3
3 !!1 ! !1
!
!! =
"0 3
1
! 1
!
= 3!
= ) I have heard arguments of both sides and scrutinized record with their able assistance.
7.
Concededly, the petitioner was working with respondent which is an armed and disciplined force. Every member of the force is bound to maintain high standards of discipline which are foundation of every force. The petitioner in his statement has admitted use of mobile number in question. The matter started from the office of Prime Minister of India. The allegations were enquired by higher officers and during the course of enquiry many witnesses were examined. The petitioner did not ask even a single question from the witnesses, though he was granted opportunity to cross-examine them. He preferred appeal as well as revision before higher authorities who had examined his each and every submission. All the authorities have found that petitioner is a habitual offender. Despite being awarded punishment of 25 days sentence on the earlier occasion, he did not mend his behavior. Every time, he posed himself as senior officer like Special General of Police, CRPF, ADGP, Punjab etc.
8.
It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference at High Court level against departmental proceedings is very limited. High Court is not supposed to re-appreciate evidence led during the course of departmental enquiry. High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can examine whether there is violation of any prescribed procedure or there was mala fide on the part of authorities or the official has been victimized. A two-judge Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 while adverting with 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 enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered its judicial precedents including a two-judge Bench judgment in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
! "
# # $
%
& ' # ( # $
) * + , - .
/
0 % #
% * * # 1 ## 2 # $
* 2
$ %
# #
2 % #
! "
# # $ %
*
# * 2
.
1
34 1
#5 34
*
# #
6 5 34
* * #
# *
# 5
34
*
* # * 5 3#4 % * # # %
* *
*
5
34
#
*5
34
* # #5 34 # # # *
7
(
! "
# # $ %
.
34 *5
34 # 1 %
5 34
1 # *5
3*4 # *5
3*4 #% #
* #
3*4 # # * *
5
3*4
# - 8
22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. 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.
However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to reconsider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor." 9.
In the case in hand, this Court finds that petitioner in 2018 was subjected to sentence of 25 days on account of impersonation. The higher officers of CRPF during enquiry found that he on other occasions as well, posed himself as Additional Director General of Police or Special General of Police, CRPF. He was subjected to impugned punishment on
account of posing himself as Joint Secretary, Prime Ministry of India. The act and conduct of the petitioner does not warrant leniency. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The respondent has followed due procedure and petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity to put forth his stand. He was extended opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, however, he did not ask even a single question from witnesses which tantamount to his consent to alleged offence. 10.
In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. /* ,+2 ((.5(.(5
@
* A *2 : ; <!=