S. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) PUNISHMENT of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, was upheld by the learned Single Judge. Against this order of learned Single Judge that the present action of filing appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that a charge sheet was served on the appellant on February 18, 1993, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short `cca Rules'), while he was working as Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service. The appellant filed reply to the charge sheet. Enquiry officer was appointed, who after due enquiry, sent enquiry report to the SP Kota City, who was Disciplinary Authority of the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued show cause notice to the appellant and passed order dated June 25, 1994 terminating his services and forfeiting the balance of salary payable to the appellant during period of suspension except subsistence allowance. Coming to the charge sheet served on the appellant we notice that the charges No. 1, 2 and 3 related to incident dated July 10, 1992, wherein it was alleged that while the appellant was deputed at village Kansua for general surveillance, he gave beating to one Prem Singh, as a result of which local public gathered and expressed its anger on the behaviour of the appellant. When the Incharge of the Police Station reached there and tried to pacify the appellant, the appellant even in presence of the Incharge kept on abusing. The reply of the appellant to charge No. 1 was that no such incident had taken place. It was Mohan Lal Cheeta, Incharge Police Station made false entries against the appellant in Rojnamcha. Neither Prem Singh lodged FIR against the appellant nor Prem Singh or any other member of local public deposed against the appellant. Charge No. 4 related to make attempt to assault on the accused of case No. 236/92 on July 23, 1992. In reply to this charge the appellant stated that accused of case No. 236/92 was arrested for giving beating to constable Hamid Ali and for committing theft. The accused was intoxicated and the appellant had only tried to save. Hamid Ali, ASI. Charges No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 related to the abuses allegedly hurled by the appellant to the Circle Officer IV and other persons. In reply to the charges the appellant stated that allegations levelled against the appellant were false and malicious. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that findings arrived at by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities were based on no evidence at all. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order held that "it would be difficult to reach the conclusion that finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence at all. " We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. H. C. Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364) held that the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. If the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as it stands, it will be seen whether from such evidence the impugned conclusion follows or not? It was observed as under:-      " In dealing with a writ petition filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311 (2), the High Court under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. Although the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order, nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence. (Para 20 ). It was further indicated thus:-      " It is not necessary that in order to attack the order on the ground that it is based on no evidence malafide exercise of power by the Government should be alleged. The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. If it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will issue without further proof of malafides. (Para 22)
(3.) IN Union of INdia vs. B. C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC 750, the Apex Court propounded as under:- (Para 18) "the High Court/tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/tribunal it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the Disciplinary/appellate Authorities to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself in exceptional and rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. " Bearing these principles in mind, we are inclined to hold that imposition of punishment of dismissal from service on the appellant is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charges imputed to the appellant and it shocks our judicial conscience. Without weighing the evidence and taking the material on record as it stands we find that the appellant while dealing with the agitating public and the intoxicated accused lost his temper and his superiors treated this act of appellant as misconduct. Accordingly we set aside the dismissal order as well as other ancillary directions issued in the said order. We hold that imposition of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect would be the appropriate punishment. However since the appellant himself is responsible for the initiation of the proceedings, we direct that he is not entitled to back wages, but all other consequential benefits would be available to him. ;