RAJEEV SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the inquiry report, dated 27th December, 2010, submitted by the Inquiring Authority (District and Sessions Judge), Hamirpur and, in particular, findings recorded therein against the petitioner in relation to Articles of Charge Nos.IV, V, VII and VIII (partly); the Full Court Resolution of the High Court, dated 11th August, 2011; and including notification issued by respondent No.1, dated 9th September, 2011, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired with all consequential reliefs.

(3.) BEFORE we analyze the rival submissions in detail, we may deem . it apposite to remind ourselves about the scope of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction against such decisions. In a recent case decided by the Apex Court in State Bank of India and others versus Narendra Kumar Pandey1, in paragraphs 23 to 26, it is observed thus: "23. The Inquiring Authority has examined each and every charge levelled against the charged officer and the documents produced by the presenting officer and came to the conclusion that most of the charges were proved. In a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court reported in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [1972 (4) SCC 618] and R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Others [JT 1999 (6) SC 507 : 1999 (8) SCC 90]. The documents produced by the bank, which were not controverted by the charged officer, supports all the allegations and charges levelled against the charged officer. In a case, where the charged officer had failed to inspect the documents in respect of the allegations raised by the bank and not controverted it is always open to the Inquiring Authority to accept the same. 24. In Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha [1994 (2) SCC 615], this court held: ig "4.....A bank employee who had refused to avail of the opportunities provided to him in a disciplinary proceeding of defending himself against the charges of misconduct involving his integrity and honesty, cannot be permitted to complain later that he had been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself of the charges levelled against him and the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him by the bank employer had resulted in violation of principles of natural justice of fair hearing". 25. The High Court, in our view, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the appointing authority after a full-fledged inquiry, especially when the Service Rules provide for an alternative remedy of appeal. It is a well acceptable principle of law that the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority. Of course, its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice. In State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde [JT 2006 (7) SC 383 : 2006 (7) SCC 212], this Court held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence acting as a court of Appeal. We have, on facts, found that no procedural irregularity has been committed either by the Bank, presenting officer or the Inquiring 1 (2013) 2 SCC 740 Authority. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in . accordance with the Service Rules. 26. This court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] held: "7.....Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the inquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence especially when the charged officer had not participated in the inquiry and had not raised the grounds urged by him before the High Court by the Inquiring Authority." (emphasis supplied)