J K SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeel under Letters Patent is directed against the impugned Judgment dated 9.2.1996 dismissing the appellant's writ petition against am order of his removal from service

(2.) The appellant, formerly a Deputy Manager, was charged of tampering with quotations submitted by the supplier and over payment made to the firm by the appellant against the terms And conditions or the purchased order and also for acceptance of sub-standard and poor quality of the Tarpaulines received by him from the firm. An enquiry was conducted departmentally and the enquiry officer submitted her report on 4.6.1983 holding Charge No.1 as proved and Charge No.2 pertaining to pub standard and poorquality of Tarpaulines as partly proved The Disciplinary Authority afterexamining the said enquiry report together with the relevant documents agreed with the finding in respect of Charge No1 but did hot agree with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry of Officer in respect of Charge No.2 Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to the appellant on 28-10-1983 recording tentalive reasons for disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the Charge No.2 and also intimating his agreement with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.1 asking him to, show cause. as to 'why penalty' of removal from service should not be; imposed on him. On consideration of the reply submitted by the appellant the Disclinary Authority passed an order removing the appellant from service, The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of removal. The learned Single Judge, while concurring with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority that charges levelled against the appellants were proved, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by that, this appeal is filed by the appellant

(3.) The appellant's only grievance is that the punishment awarded to the appellant did, not commensurate with the gravity of charges levelled against him. It is well settled that while exercising the power of Judicial review, the Courts shall not normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the competent, authorities. In State Bank of India Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow (1994) 2 SCC 537, the Apex Court has held that imposition of proper punishment is within the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority.