M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN these two appeals, since common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard and disposed of together by this common order.
(2.) THESE two appellants are the constables in Central Industrial Security Force ( in short CISF) at Kargali colliery of Central Coalfield Limited. On 21.11.1997 and 24.11.1997 in a surprise check . it was found that these two appellants , while they were posted at the check post, collected money from the drivers/khalasies. Charge sheet for gross misconduct , indiscipline and dereliction of duty , Was served on the appellants alleging that while on duty they collected Rs. 50/ - and 65/ - respectively towards/legal gratification from the truck drivers/khalasies. After holding a departmental inquiry they were dismissed from service. 2. Both the appellants challenged the order of dismissal by filing CWJC Nos. 1707 and 1715 of 1998. Learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions holding that once charges were proved, there is no scope of judicial review. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellants were given opportunity to defend themselves and that merely because of recovery of amount of Rs. 50/ - and 65/ -, it cannot be accepted that the allegation is not grave. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government. The learned Single Judge observed: The scope of judicial review under writ jurisdiction is limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded in the disciplinary proceedings. There is no perversity. There is no procedural error. The petitioner was given opportunity to defend himself. Only because a small amount of Rs. 65/ - was recovered , it cannot be accepted that the allegations proved against the petitioner were not grave. After all, he was a constable in CISF. The punishment of dismissal cannot be said to harsh. 4. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar 2003 AIR SCW 944 the Supreme Court was considering the case of an Assistant Manager of Bank who was charged for fabricating and manipulating records in which punishment of dismissal was imposed. Their Lordships observed as under: A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors . and the customers. Every Officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority -cum - Regional Manager V. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik , it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependant upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond ones authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear, to have been kept in view by the High Court.
(3.) IN another case of Union of India and Ors. v. Narain Singh 2002 AIR SCW 2172 the Supreme Court held as under: As seen above, the Division Bench notes that the charges against the Respondent are proved and that the charges are of serious nature. Once the Court came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and that the charges were of the serious nature, it was not the function of the Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The Division Bench was wrong in holding that factors viz. (a) the person is coming from which place, (b) his family background and (c) his service record etc. were to be kept in mind. In our view the Division Bench was also wrong in holding that if a poor person pleads guilty to the misconduct, then extreme penalty of dismissal is uncalled for. In our view a Court must not lightly interfere with sentences passed after a properly conducted enquiry where the guilt is proved. Reduction of sentence, particularly in military , Paramilitary or police services can have demoralizing effect and would be a retrograde step so far as discipline of these services is concerned. In this case the charges being of a serious nature, the penalty was commensurate with the charges. Further the Division Bench has itself -noted that this was the third time the respondent was punished. ;