- (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 23.6.1998 (Annexure P -8), whereby, he was dismissed from service.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was a qualified Engineer and joined the respondents - Electronic Systems Punjab Limited in the year 1981. Petitioner got issued motherboard from Sub Store of Production Department on 14.8.1997. Inspection was carried out on 16.8.1997, while the petitioner was on leave and his side drawers of the table were opened. The competent authority had no authorisation for carrying out the inspection of the drawers of the petitioner at his back. In fact, the said proceedings had been carried out by none other than the President of the ESPL Technocrats Association and ESPL Workers Union. To justify the illegal removal of the motherboard respondent No.4 wrote a letter on 18.8.1997 to respondent No.3 that in view of the pressure of the employees and the representatives of the ESPL Technocrats Association and ESPL Workers Union, a search may be carried out to trace the motherboard. When the petitioner came to attend the office on 19.8.1997, he was detained at the security and was directed to proceed to the production department for search of the motherboard. Petitioner was suspended on 1.9.1997 under the pressure of the ESPL Technocrats Association and ESPL Workers Union. Chargesheet was also served on the petitioner. Petitioner submitted detailed reply to the chargesheet. However, the inquiry officer submitted the report against the petitioner qua charge No.1. The competent authority did not agree with the report of the inquiry officer with regard to exoneration of the petitioner qua charge No.2. Show cause notice dated 22.4.1998 was served on the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice. Despite the said fact, impugned order of dismissal was passed. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the inquiry report was perverse and was based on no evidence. In fact, petitioner had been falsely involved in this case by the representatives of the ESPL Technocrats Association and ESPL Workers Union. Both the charges were not proved against the petitioner during inquiry. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and another vs. Rajnish Garg, 2002 5 SLR 763, wherein, it was held as under: - 12. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel, but have not felt impressed. In S. Sree Rama Rao's case , a three -Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered the ambit and scope of the power of the judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings and laid down the following propositions : - "The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant; it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether rules of natural justice are not violated. Whether there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the 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." 13. In Ashok Kumar Arora's case , the Supreme Court reiterated the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment by making the following observations : - "The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited, for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of nonobservance of principles of natural justice; denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to few decisions of this Court on this topic viz., State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1964 3 SCR 25, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, 1976 1 SCR 521, Corporation of City of Nagpur and another v. Ramachandra, 1981 3 SCR 22and Nelson Motis v. Union of India and another, 1992 AIR(SC) 1981" 14. We have examined the order of the learned Single Judge in the light of the above noted propositions and are of the opinion that the same does not suffer any legal infirmity. In our opinion, even through the High Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction in disciplinary matters and it cannot re -appreciate and re -evaluate evidence produced in the departmental enquiry or substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion formed by the disciplinary authority on the guilt of the delinquent, it can always scrutinise the order of punishment and other relevant records to find out whether the view taken by the punishing authority is plausible and is correct from the standard of a reasonable and prudent person. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the order of punishment is based on no evidence or that the view taken by the disciplinary authority is perverse, then it can nullify the same and give appropriate direction. This is precisely what the learned Single Judge has done in the present case. He has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction, but has, after examining the record produced by the parties, come to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority on the issue of negligence is perverse. We entirely agree with the learned Single Judge and do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by the Appeal Bench." Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the company in question has been wound up. A detailed inquiry was held qua the charges levelled against the petitioner and the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Therefore, the termination order was liable to be upheld. 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 reappreicate 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.;