Union of India and Others vs Subrata Nath

HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere. [Para 15][615E]

1.2 Being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons. [Para 22][621-B-D]

1.3 The approach of the Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be accepted. There was no good reason for the High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer. This was clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, fell into an error by setting aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority. [Para 28][623-G-H; 624-A]

1.4 The findings returned by and conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, duly confirmed by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the Revisional Authority in respect of both the Articles of Charge levelled against the respondent and the punishment imposed on him is accepted. The respondent being a member of the disciplined force, was expected to have discharged his duty diligently. His gross negligence and dereliction of duty has resulted in theft of 800 kgs. copper wires from the spot where he was performing his duty. Further, the records reveal that the respondent did not mend his ways during thirteen years of service rendered by him and was awarded eight punishments for various delinquencies out of which, three punishments included stoppage of increment on two occasions for one year without cumulative effect twice and stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect on one occasion. In such circumstances, the desirability of continuing the respondent in the Armed Forces is certainly questionable and the Disciplinary Authority could not be expected to wear blinkers in respect of his past conduct while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on him. [Para 29][624-B-D]

1.5 It is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned judgment while restoring the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority upheld by the Appellate Authority and endorsed by the Revisional Authority. The penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent is commensurate with the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on his part. [Para 30][624-E-G]

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union Of India and Others (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; State Of Orissa And Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC

779 : [1963] 1 Suppl. SCR 648; Central Industrial Security Force And Others v. Abrar Ali (2017) 4 SCC 507; State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 : [2011] 3 SCR 589; Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. And Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC

569 : [2008] 3 SCR 1184; Union Of India and Others V. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 : [2014] 13 SCR 1312; Union Of India And Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan (2022) 1 SCC 373; Union Of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618 : [1972] 2 SCR 218 – referred to.