Madras High CourtThe Assistant Commandant vs Mr.V.Selvarajan on 1 December, 2004Bench:P.D.Dinakaran,F.M.Ibrahim KalifullaIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

Dated: 01/12/2004 

Coram 

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN         
AND  
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA         

W.A.No.813 of 1999  
and 
W.A.No. 1257 OF 19991.The Assistant Commandant,  
   Central Industrial Security Force,
   Madras Fertilizers Limited,
   Manali, Madras-600 068.2. The Group Commandant,   
   Central Industrial Security Force,
   Ministry of Home Affairs, Anna Nagar,
   Madras-600 102.3. The Deputy Inspector General (SZ),
   Central Industrial Security Force,
   Ministry of Home Affairs, Anna Nagar East,
   Madras-600 102.4. The Director General,
   Central Industrial Security Force,
   Block No.13, CGO's Complex, 
   Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 003.        ...     Appellants and
                                                Respondents 1 to 4 in
                                                W.A.No.1257 of 1999-Vs-Mr.V.Selvarajan                 ...     Respondent and          
                                                Appellant in W.A.No.1257
                                                of 1999.

!For Appellants                 : Mr. K.Veeraraghavan, ACGSC   

^For Respondent                 : Mr.V.Prakash,        
                                  Senior CounselPrayer:  These Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 07.04.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of  this
Court in W.P.No.17379 of 1991.:Common Judgment   

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) 

        These writ appeals are directed  against  the  order  of  the  learned
Single Judge, dated 07.04.1999 made in W.P.No.17379 of 1991.2.   The delinquent Officer, one V.Selvarajan (hereinafter referred to
'writ  petitioner')  filed  the  Writ  Petition  in  W.P.No.17379   of   1991,
challenging his  removal  from  service.    The learned Single Judge, by order
dated  07.04.1999,  which  is  impugned  in  these  writ   appeals,   directed
reinstatement  of  the writ petitioner with continuity of service, but without
back wages.3.  Challenging the above said order, writ appeal in W.A.No.813 of  19
99  has  been  preferred  by the department, viz., Central Industrial Security
Force  (hereinafter  referred  to  'respondent-department'),  while  the  writ
petitioner has preferred the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1257 of 1 999 claiming back
wages.4.1.   The  brief  facts which led to the filing of the Writ Petition,
are as follows:The writ petitioner was working as a 'Naik' in Intelligence and  Crime
Section in   the   respondent-department.      The  Group  Commandant  of  the
respondent-department,  by  his  order  dated  20.09.1985,  removed  the  writ
petitioner from service with effect from 21-9-1985 for the following charge of
misconduct, 
"On  07.09.1984,  No.7218266  Naik V.Selvarajan of CISF Unit, MFL Manali while
performing duty at Int/Crime Section allegedly prepared  a  fake  challan  and
allowed to take out one Tonne of Casurina Ballies by Shri B.Mani Supervisor of
M/s Ramakrishna Contract unauthorisedly."4.2.   Aggrieved  against  the  order  of removal, the writ petitioner
preferred an  appeal  before  the  Appellate  Authority,  namely,  the  Deputy
Inspector General.    By  order  dated  2.6.1986, the Appellate Authority also
confirmed the order of removal.  Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner  preferred  a
revision  before  the  Revisional  Authority,  namely, Director General of the
respondent-department.  By order  dated  6.8.1987,  the  Revisional  Authority
dismissed the revision, against which the above writ petition was filed.4.3.   The  respondent-department  resisted  the  writ petition on the
ground that since the charge levelled against the writ  petitioner,  viz.,  he
permitted  one Shri B.Mani, Supervisor of M/s.Ramakrishna Contract to take out
one tonne of Casurina Ballies by preparing a  fake  challan  and  thereby  the
respondent-department  incurred  loss,  was  held  proved,  no interference is
required in the impugned disciplinary action.  It was also contended on behalf
of the respondent-department that the writ petitioner being a  Naik  in  Crime
and  Intelligence Section in respondent-department is expected to act with due
diligence, inasmuch as his nature of work demands vigilance  with  an  inbuilt
requirement to act carefully, and any carelessness and negligence in discharge
of  responsibilities would invite necessary action, which has been done by the
respondent-department in a  proper  manner,  and  hence,  no  interference  is
required.4.4.   The  learned  Single  Judge  though  did not interfere with the
impugned  disciplinary  proceedings,  directed  the  respondent-department  to
reinstate  the writ petitioner without back wages, finding that the punishment
of removal from service is disproportionate to the charge proved.5.   Both  the  learned  counsel  for  the  writ  petitioner  and  the
respondent-department  reiterated  their submissions that were made before the
learned Single Judge.6.  We have given careful consideration to  the  submissions  of  both
sides.7.   It  is  well  settled  law that while exercising powers conferred
underArticle 226of the Constitution of India, it may not be proper for  this
Court  to  act as an appellate authority, as the jurisdiction of this Court in
exercising the power of judicial review is meant to correct the errors of  law
or  procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles
of natural justice, inasmuch as  the  power  of  judicial  review  has  to  be
confined  with  the  decision making process and not with the decision itself.However, if and when the punishment imposed  based  on  the  findings  of  the
Enquiry  Officer  shocks judicial conscience, it can be interfered, videLalit
Popli v.  Canara Bank, [2003] 3 SCC 583.8.  In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the  petitioner  is
working   as   a   Naik   in   Crime   and   Intelligence   Section   in   the
respondent-department and therefore, he is expected to  discharge  his  duties
diligently with an inbuilt requirement to act carefully.  The case of the writ
petitioner  is  that  he  never  prepared  any  fake  challan, but he has only
directed one Shri B.Mani to drive the cart through North  Gate  by  making  an
endorsement  as  "N.Gate" on the backside of the challan, which was alleged to
be fake.  However, the fact remains that only because of the endorsement  made
by  the  writ  petitioner  on  the  back  side of the challan, which he is not
supposed to do, the cart with one tonne of Casurina ballies was  permitted  to
be taken  out  unauthorisedly by the Supervisor, Shri B.Mani.  Therefore, even
though the delinquent pleads lack of  'criminal  intent'  in  respect  of  the
preparation of the fake challan, in our considered opinion, we are not able to
subscribe  ourselves to such contention as the plea of lack of criminal intent
is immaterial while considering his duty and responsibility as a Naik in Crime
and Intelligence Section in respondent-department as he had not acted with due
vigilance and care.  However, an order  of  removal  on  that  ground  in  our
considered  opinion  is  excessive  while assuming the charge against the writ
petitioner, namely, that he has not discharged his duties with  due  diligence
and care is proved.  Therefore, only by striking a balance between the service
rendered  by  the  writ petitioner for the past 15 years and the nature of the
charge, the learned single Judge has rightly set aside the  order  of  removal
and  directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner with continuity of service,
but without back wages.  Therefore, considering the limited scope of  judicial
review,  we  are  of  the considered opinion that the learned single Judge was
right in setting aside the order of removal and directing the reinstatement of
the writ petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages.9.  We are fortified in our conclusion by the  decision  of  the  Apex
Court inUnited  Commercial Bank v.  P.C.  Kakkar,(2003) 4 SCC 364, wherein it
is held that the court should not interfere with the administrators  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.  The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency
in decision-making process and  not  the  decision.    Therefore,  unless  the
punishment  imposed  by  the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority
shocks  the  conscience  of  the  court/tribunal,  there  is  no   scope   for
interference.10.   We,  therefore, find no reason to differ from the conclusions of
the learned single Judge in his order dated 7.4.1999.In the result, both  these  appeals  fail  and  they  are  accordingly
dismissed.  There  shall  be  no  order as to costs.  The respondentdepartment
shall pass appropriate orders in compliance with  the  order  of  the  learned
single  Judge  dated  7.4.1999 expeditiously, in any event, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Index           :  Yes
Internet        :  Yes

suk/sasi


To

1.  The Assistant Commandant,  
Central Industrial Security Force,
Madras Fertilizers Limited,
Manali, Madras-600 068. 

2.  The Group Commandant,  
Central Industrial Security Force,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Anna Nagar,
Madras-600 102. 

3.  The Deputy Inspector General (SZ),
Central Industrial Security Force,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Anna Nagar East,
Madras-600 102. 

4.  The Director General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
Block No.13, CGO's Complex,  
Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 003. 

