- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction against the respondents to pass the formal order of exoneration in view of the departmental enquiry report dated 26/7/2013, and further declaring that the procedure adopted by the respondents in finalizing the pending enquiry against the petitioner by delaying the matter for last one and half years is violative of Article 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.P. Mathur for the petitioner that the petitioner was exonerated in the preliminary enquiry, and also in the regular enquiry by the enquiry officer with regard to the charges levelled against him, however the DOP, who is the disciplinary authority, has sought the comments of administrative department in respect of the said report of enquiry officer only with a view to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that it is the disciplinary authority itself, who has to take the final decision and its decision should not be influenced by any other consideration, as has been sought to be done in the instant case by the DOP. Relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of K.B. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, 1971 2 SCC 102, he submitted that the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority should be as per the rules and the decision should be the decision of the disciplinary authority only. According to him, though the regular enquiry was not warranted when the charges against the petitioner were found baseless in the preliminary enquiry, the regular enquiry was conducted and though in the regular enquiry, the enqury officer has exonerated the petitioner, the disciplinary authority is taking long time to take the decision and is adopting the procedure dehors the CCA Rules.
(3.) In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court merely under the apprehension that the disciplinary authority shall take decision adverse to the report submitted by the enquiry officer, and therefore has asked for the prayer to direct the respondents to pass the formal order of exoneration. This Court fails to understand as to how such a direction could be issued to the disciplinary authority, curtailing the powers of the disciplinary authority to examine the record and take appropriate decision as per the CCA Rules. It is settled legal position that the Courts can not sit in appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority and the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process only. In any case, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, there is no adverse decision taken by the disciplinary authority, and therefore the question of this Court directing the respondents to pass an order of exoneration as prayed for by the petitioner, does not arise. In the decision of Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had approached the Court after the decision was taken by the disciplinary authority. Merely because the DOP has asked for the remarks of administrative department, in respect of the enquiry report, it could not be said that the DOP, which is the disciplinary authority according to the petitioner, has acted arbitrarily or in violation of the Rules.;