UNION OF INDIA Vs. P R BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TIns writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.9.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil. Rule No. 3839 of 1991 quasInng the order of dismissal of the petitioner and directing the respondent to reconsider and to impose lesser punishment other than the punishment of dismissal. Being aggrieved, the Union of India and others have preferred tIns writ appeal.

(2.) The writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the penalty of dismissal on the ground that the disciplinary authority (Pretty Security Force Court) acted beyond jurisdiction and awarded verdict of guilt without giving Inm reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner who was Head constable in the Border Security Force (A. Coy 22 Bn.) was indicted under four counts for misconduct and dereliction of duty and charges were framed accordingly. On completion of the departmental proceedings, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed as the charges framed against Inm were proved. The penalty was also affirmed by the Ingher authority in due course. Learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal set aside the order of dismissal on the grounds that the lady who had appeared in the witness box to give her statement did not make any statement indicating the petitioner for attempting to outrage her modesty. Learned Judge further held that the penalty of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the offence committed and, therefore, directed the respondents to reconsider and impose lesser punishment.

(3.) Sri K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Central Govt Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the petitioner was a member of the disciplinary force and, in that view of the matter, the penalty imposed upon Inm cannot be said to be disproportionate to the offence committed. Drawing attention of tIns Court to the nature of the charges, Sri Choudhury submitted that tIns is a case wInch does not warrant interference of tIns Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sri Choudhury also referred to the special provision embodied in Art. 33 of the Constitution and submitted that tIns Court wInle exercising its power of judicial review is only to see the correctness of the decision making process and not to act as a Court of appeal evaluating the evidence in details.