SHARMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated March 13, 1997 of the learned Single Judge whereby the prayer of the appellant seeking quashing of the orders of Commissioner Excise Department (Disciplinary Authority) dated June 7, 1991 and Deputy Secretary Department of Finance (Appellate Authority) dated August 20, 1993 was declined and directions issued vide those orders in regard to removal of appellant from the services were affirmed.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that charge sheet was issued to the appellant vide memo dated October 18, 1986 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules,1958 and inquiry was initiated against the appellant on the following charge:- *** On completion of inquiry the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment on the appellant by removing him from service. The order of Disciplinary Authority was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The appellant preferred writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid orders on the ground that since appellant was acquitted in criminal case vide order dated December 12, 1995, he could not be removed from the service. Learned Single Judge observed that the appellant was given full opportunities of hearing and his conduct of going to a place, which was famous for the flesh trade that too in suspicious circumstances, namely, without uniform, going in private car of his friend and carrying his friend, Jamadar and Sipahi, who were also without uniform, were sufficient for the department to come to the conclusion that the appellant had gone with illintention. It was further indicated that the criminal case stood on different footing and the acquittal in criminal case could not ipso-facto result reversion of the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order, placed reliance on Babu Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2000 (3) WLC (Raj.) 529, = (RLW 2001 (1) Raj. 75), wherein penalty of dismissal was altered on the ground that co-dlinquent was awarded lesser punishment. Reliance was also placed on Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991)1 SCC 588, wherein it was held that non furnishing of enquiry report to delinquent would be violative of principles of natural justice. After assailing the findings of learned Single Judge on merits, learned counsel for the appellant ultimately urged that since the punishment awarded to appellant was excessive, lesser penalty could be imposed. We do not find any merit in these contentions. The impugned orders of removal in our opinion neither are shockingly disproportionate nor they are illogical. We do not see any deficiency in decision making process. The appellant was provided opportunity of hearing in accordance with the statutory rules and the impugned orders have been passed in confirmity with the principles of natural justice. In Union of India vs. Dwarka Prasad (2006)10 SCC 388, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that court's interference with the quantum of punishment cannot be a routin matter. The court should not interfere with the Administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into correctness of the choice made by the Administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the Administrator. The scope of judicial review to deficiency in decision making process and not the decision.
(3.) IN State of Rajasthan vs. Mohammad Ayub Naz (2006)1 SCC 589 = (2006 (2) RLW 1084 (SC) the Apex Court observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. The Authorities, in our opinion, have not omitted any relevant materials nor has any irrelevant fact been taken into account nor any illegality committed by the authorities. Since the charges against appellant are very serious in nature, we find no ground for interference in the matter. For these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs. . ;