TARKESHWAR TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a constable in C.I.S.F. Unit, B.C.C.L, Dhanbad was departmentally proceeded for the charges that on 06.06.1999 at about 18:30 hours he indulged into a quarrel with a co-constable namely Gokul Maity as a result thereof, the said constable Gokul Maity sustained serious head injury and was to be hospitalized. This amounted to gross misconduct, willful breach of discipline and prejudicial to the good order and unbecoming of a good member of the armed force of the Union. The petitioner was suspended and then after a full-fledged departmental enquiry, the charge against him was found to be established. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority by order as contained in Annexure-9 inflicted the following punishments to the petitioner:

(2.) The order passed by the disciplinary authority was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate forum, but the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, and accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate order awarding punishment to him.

(3.) Mr. Pandey learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner took me to the detailed order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate order and tried to assail the findings on facts arrived at by the aforesaid two authorities on the ground that the findings are perverse. When this Court disclosed its mind that the finding of facts arrived at in a departmental proceeding cannot be disturbed by this Court on reappraisal of evidence like a Court of appeal, unless it is shown to be perverse, at this juncture, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel confined his arguments with regard to quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner, on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the charges and he submitted that out of two charges, the charge with regard to insubordination of not accepting the suspension order was not found to be established against the petitioner and the only charge remained against the petitioner was that he quarreled with the co-constable and by his act of violence, the coconstable received head injury, for which, he was to be hospitalized.