Calcutta HC Upholds Removal Of Railway Employee In Bribery Case, Reiterates Limited Scope Of Judicial Review In Dept Proceedings
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the removal from service of a railway employee accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, while reiterating that judicial review over disciplinary proceedings is limited and courts cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate authority.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen dismissed a writ petition challenging a 2009 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had affirmed the employee's removal from service.
The Court observed that once findings in a departmental proceeding are supported by evidence and there is no violation of natural justice, interference under Article 226 is unwarranted.
“The High Court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence,” the Bench reiterated.
The petitioner, Asim Kumar Paul, had approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 763 of 2004.
The disciplinary proceedings arose from allegations that while serving under the Railways, the petitioner had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from a passenger in connection with official work. Following a vigilance trap and departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority initially imposed a punishment.
However, the appellate authority enhanced the punishment to “removal from service”, which was later affirmed by the revisional authority.
Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Tribunal contending that the inquiry suffered from procedural irregularities, principles of natural justice had been violated, and the punishment was disproportionate.
The Tribunal rejected those contentions and upheld the enhanced punishment, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.
The Division Bench noted that the scope of interference in disciplinary matters is narrow and confined to examining whether the inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with law.
The Court observed that the departmental authorities had considered the materials on record and arrived at concurrent findings regarding the petitioner's misconduct.
It held that the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion merely because another view may also be possible.
The Bench further noted that there was no procedural illegality or perversity in the findings warranting interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the argument that removal from service was excessive, the Court held that corruption-related misconduct by a public servant is grave in nature and cannot be treated lightly.
The Bench observed that once the charge of accepting illegal gratification stood proved in departmental proceedings, the punishment imposed could not be said to shock the conscience of the Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case: Asim Kumar Paul v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WP.CT 75 of 2010