SHYAM SUNDER NAINWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-90
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 24,2012

Shyam Sunder Nainwal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH,.J. - (1.) IN a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, he has been awarded a punishment of reverting him to the lower pay -scale and permanent stoppage of two increments. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) IN the writ petition, it has not been contended that there has been violation of Rules or principles of natural justice in the matter of conducting the inquiry into the charges, which amounted to misconduct. On the other hand, it is the contention that the charges, as were levelled, were not proved. At the same time, it has not been stated that the materials brought on record to prove the charges were deficient. In other words, what the petitioner is seeking this Court to do, is to reappreciate the evidence on record, shift the same and to weigh the same for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority erred in accepting that the charges stand proved. The writ court, it must be noted, is not the Appellate Authority and does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the Disciplinary Authority. The writ court is only entitled to exercise his power of judicial review. In exercise of power of judicial review, the writ court is required to see, whether the thing, complained of, could be done in the facts and circumstances of the case as informed by the person, who committed the act in question. The writ court is not in a position to say, what otherwise the person could do? In the instant case, charge was apathy on the part of the petitioner, a member of the Prison Guard Force, to alert other Prison Guards as regards escape by three prisoners through the main entrance of the prison. It was stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner was standing inside a temple outside the main gate of the prison, when three prisoners escaped through the main entrance of the prison, but the petitioner did not take any step to alert other Prison Guards so as to prevent escape of those three prisoners. This charge was answered by the petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet by stating that the petitioner completed his duties at 6:50 a.m., whereafter he came outside the main gate of the prison and then went to the Mandir situate 200 metres outside the prison and he lodged the First Information Report pertaining to escape of those three prisoners, noted down the vehicle number of the vehicle used by those prisoners in connection with their escape and handed over the same to the search party in order to facilitate nabbing of those escaping prisoners. The said state of affairs clearly indicates that the petitioner, until such time the escape vehicle left the front of the prison, despite being present at the place of the incident, despite seeing that the prisoners are escaping, did nothing. In this state of things, if the Inquiry Officer has taken the view that the charge stands proved, a prudent person will not be in a position to contend that the Inquiry Officer erred.
(3.) IN that situation, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the proceeding, which culminated in passing of the final disciplinary order. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.