CANTONMENT BOARD MEERUT Vs. ANUJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Ajai Kumar Singh and Ms. Shataxi Shukla, Advocates for the appellants, Dr. L. P. Misra, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Rohit Agarwal, Sri Chinmay Mishra and Sri Anant Khanna for the respondent No.1 and Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel representing respondent No.2 and 3 and perused the records available before us on this Special Appeal.

(2.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, this intra-Court appeal questions the judgment and order dtd. 27/4/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No. 14919 of 2021 filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner has been allowed and the order of punishment of dismissal from service dtd. 14/8/2019 and the resolution of the Cantonment Board dtd. 14/8/2019 as also the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal against the punishment order, dtd. 1/6/2021 have been quashed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has also directed the appellants-Cantonment Board, Meerut to re-instate the respondent No.1/petitioner in service alongwith all consequential benefits on the post on which he was working prior to his dismissal.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate representing the appellants- respondents has vehemently argued that the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 27/4/2023 is not sustainable for the reason that the learned Single Judge has apparently exercised his jurisdiction beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order of dismissal from service passed after conclusion of full-fledged departmental inquiry. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants-respondents that the learned Single Judge has acted as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority inasmuch as that the learned Single Judge has substituted his own findings to the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority by appreciating the evidence afresh which is not permissible so far as judicial review of matters relating to disciplinary proceedings is concerned.