- (1.) The present intra-court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges order dated 15.7.2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition (CWP No.22958 of 2011) filed by the appellant.
(2.) The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant was working as a Development Officer at Branch Office of the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company") at Phagwara. He was proceeded against both departmentally and criminally for having accepted bribe from one Sawinder Singh. In the departmental proceedings held against the appellant, after following due procedure and the principles of natural justice, vide order dated 9.6.2006, he was dismissed from service. Meanwhile, the criminal trial continued and vide judgment dated 1.12.2008, the appellant was acquitted by the criminal court. This led to moving of representations by the appellant to the concerned authorities seeking setting aside of his dismissal order and consequent reinstatement. When these representations went unanswered, he approached this Court through CWP No.19112 of 2009 which was dismissed as withdrawn to enable the appellant to avail his alternative remedy of appeal. As per liberty granted by this Court, the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 18.4.2011.
(3.) It is against the above dismissal order dated 9.6.2006 and appellate order dated 18.4.2011 that the appellant again approached this Court through a writ petition. This writ petition filed by the appellant was considered and dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding as under: "In the present case, petitioner was working as a Development Officer. Petitioner was charge sheeted on the allegations that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- from Sawinder Singh on 2.2.2001. Charge sheet issued to the petitioner in this regard is Annexure P-1. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed. Enquiry officer vide its report dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure P-2) held that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Thereafter, notice Annexure P-3 was issued to the petitioner along with copy of the enquiry report. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that petitioner was given full opportunity during the enquiry proceedings. Petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe in a raid organized by the Vigilance Department. The punishing authority after going through the enquiry report as well as the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order imposing penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of this Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. This Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then this court cannot re-appreicate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defect in the inquiry has to be pointed out before this Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect. It is not a case where the petitioner had been dismissed from service merely on account of his involvement in the criminal case. In that case, acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal trial would have gained significance. However, in the present case, petitioner was departmentally proceeded and was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, in the criminal trial, petitioner was acquitted by the Court vide order dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-6). The acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the departmental proceedings as in the departmental proceedings, the charges levelled against the petitioner stood duly proved. Thereafter, the representation moved by the petitioner for reinstatement on account of his acquittal in the criminal case, was dismissed vide order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P-9). Vide Annexure P-10, petitioner was communicated the order Annexure P-9. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 19211 of 2009 challenging orders Annexure P-5, Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.2009. A perusal of the said order reveals that petitioner had not withdrawn the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal. Although, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, was got dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.2009, but he filed the appeal on 24.12.2010 (Annexure P-12). Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay. Petitioner could have filed an appeal against the dismissal order within a period of three months. However, he filed the appeal on 24.12.2010. Appeal filed by the petitioner was, thus, liable to be dismissed being time barred. Even on merits, the appeal filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed as the fact that petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case, had no bearing on the departmental action taken against the petitioner.";