WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7416 OF 2023

Sandeep Uttam Solwande,

Age – 42 years, Occu. Nil,

R/of. Dhiwar Building, Near Kokate Hospital,

Opp. Sonal Building, Pimple Gurav,

Pune – 411 061.

]

]

]

]

]...Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Maharashtra

Through Principal Secretary,

Department of Rural Development and

Water Conservation Department,

Maharashtra

]

]

]

]

]

]

2.Deputy Commissioner, Vidhan Bhavan, Pune

Division, Pune

]

]

3. Chief Executive Officer, Pune Zilla Parishad,

Pune

]

]...Respondents

——————

Mr. Umesh Pawar for Petitioner.

Ms. Akanksha Helaskar for Respondent No. 3.

——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Reserved on : 18

th

April, 2026.

Pronounced on : 29

th

April, 2026.

Judgment :

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the parties.

2.By this Petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of

dismissal issued by the Respondent No. 3- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

Sairaj 1 of 22 2026:BHC-AS:6671

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

Parishad, Pune which was upheld by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide

orders dated 23

rd

June, 2017 and 10

th

October,2018.

3.The facts as borne out of the Petition are that the Petitioner was

appointed on the post of Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad, Pune in the

year 1997. By communication dated 28

th

March, 2013, the Block

Development Officer, Maval informed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

Parishad, Pune to take action against the Petitioner for misconduct

pursuant to which by order of 5

th

April, 2013, the Petitioner came to be

suspended. On 31

st

July, 2013, the Petitioner was served with copy of

the chargesheet along with statement of allegations. The Petitioner

forwarded his written statement dated 2

nd

September, 2013 to the

Block Development Authority, which was his higher authority, who

failed to forward it within time before the Disciplinary Authority and

submitted the same on 10

th

October, 2013.

4.The Disciplinary Authority in the absence of written statement

concluded that the Petitioner is not interested to give any explanation

and appointed Inquiry Officer to conduct departmental inquiry of the

Petitioner. It is pleaded that before the commencement of inquiry, the

documents mentioned in Annexure-III of chargesheet were not

supplied to the Petitioner and by communication of 2

nd

November,

2013, the documents were sought by the Petitioner from the

concerned department of Zilla Parishad, Pune which was made

Sairaj 2 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

available on 25

th

November, 2013 and additional written statement

came to be filed on 6

th

December, 2013. It is pleaded that the Inquiry

Officer, during the pendency of proceedings passed order on 10

th

December, 2013 directing the Presenting Officer to provide all

documents sought by the Petitioner. By letter of 11

th

December, 2013,

the Presenting Officer furnished only some of the documents and the

ground of non availability of other documents.

5.The Inquiry Officer concluded the hearing and filed Final Report

on 29

th

March, 2014 holding that the Charge Nos 1, 2, 5 and 6 are

proved and Charge Nos. 3 and 4 are partially proved. The Inquiry

Officer sent his final report to the Disciplinary Authority and show

cause notice dated 27

th

March, 2015 was issued by the Disciplinary

Authority to the Petitioner which was duly responded by the Petitioner

on 28

th

April, 2015. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of

dismissal on 30

th

June, 2015 which was appealed before the Appellate

Authority. The Appeal came to be dismissed on 23

rd

June, 2017. The

revision before Respondent No. 1 came to be dismissed on 10

th

October, 2018. Hence, the present Petition is preferred.

6.Mr. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner has taken

this Court through the findings of the Inquiry Officer and would submit

that there were six charges leveled against the Petitioner i.e. not

handing over the complete charge of the Social Welfare Department,

Sairaj 3 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

negligence in duty, misappropriation of government funds, non-

furnishing of record for the purpose of audit, non-vacating of

government quarters and misconduct under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra

Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 [for

short, “Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964”]. He would point out that

the findings in respect of Charge No 1 is based on the cancellation of

files from serial nos. 101 to 116 from the statement of taking charge.

He submits that the said statement which is at page 135 is a record of

the Petitioner taking over charge from his pre-decessor Shri. S. V.

Kendre and specifically endorses that charge was given of files only

from Serial Nos. 1 to 100. He points out that the communication at

page 131 would indicate that the Petitioner received the charge from

Shri. S. V. Kendre only of files from serial no 1 to 100 and that at page

132, in the communication by Shri S. V. Kendre to Block Development

Officer, there has been overwriting over Serial No 100 to look like

Serial No 117. He submits that Respondent did not examine Shri S. V.

Kendre to establish the charge against the Petitioner and the Inquiry

Officer has itself noted that if handing over and taking over the charge

would have been supervised by superior officer then any such

discrepancy would have been revealed. He submits that in the absence

of any evidence the Inquiry Officer has held that the charge has been

proved.

Sairaj 4 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

7. In respect of charge of negligence, he submits that the

allegation of negligence was based not only on non-handing over of

the charge, but also that there was no record kept of the material

received from the Social Welfare Department and distributed, salary

bills were not sent on time and salary deductions were not deposited

in time. He submits that there was no evidence produced by the

Respondents in support of the said charge and the Presenting Officer

adopted the submissions advanced in support of charge no. 1. He

submits that it was specifically pointed out that on 9

th

January, 2012,

while taking over the charge from Shri. S. V. Kendre, the files as regards

the receipt and distribution of material from the social welfare

department were not handed over and that by order of 30

th

August,

2010, the responsibility of payment of salaries and deposit of

deductions was the duty of the other clerk Smt. Khumbhare. He

submits that the Inquiry Officer acknowledged that the Respondent

did not lead any evidence in support of Charge No. 2, however, held

that the charge is connected with the charge of not handing over

charge and held the charge to be proved which is clearly

unsustainable.

8.He would further submit as far as misappropriation of

Government funds is concerned, the allegation was that the Petitioner

had failed to deposit the OPD amount of Rs. 2,018/-. He would further

Sairaj 5 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

point out that Inquiry Officer has recorded that the Presenting Officer

adopts the submission advanced in support of first charge. He would

further submit that the Petitioner produced the Bank challan

evidencing deposit of Rs. 2,018/- through the medical officer. He

submits that despite accepting the said evidence, the Inquiry Officer

thereafter, held that the allegation is connected with the allegation as

regards non-handing over of charge and held the same to be partly

proved.

9.He submits that in so far as charge no. 4 as regards non-

submission of necessary records for the purpose of audit for period of

2011-2012 is concerned, there were no submissions canvassed by the

Presenting Officer and the Petitioner had specifically stated that in the

statement of allegation, there is no specific mention of which record

was not made available for the purpose of audit. He submits that the

Petitioner had specifically stated that the records were kept by Shri. S.

V. Kendre and were not handed over to the Petitioner and whatever

record was available to the Petitioner was made available to the

auditors. He would submit that it was further pointed out that the

audit report does not note any such objection that the complete

records were not made available. He would further point out that

Inquiry Officer held that there was no evidence produced by the

Petitioner that he had handed over all files for audit purpose and held

Sairaj 6 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

the charge to be partly proved.

10.Insofar as the charge no. 5 of non-vacating of residential

quarters is concerned, Mr. Pawar submits that upon being transferred

from Panchayat Samiti, Maval to Primary Health Center at Mulshi, the

possession of residential quarters at Maval was not handed over as the

Petitioner’s children were taking education in the local school and that

he was ready to pay necessary rent to the Government. He would

further submit that the circular of 6

th

May, 2002 of Government itself

records that where the transfer is in Adivasi area, the family members

of the concerned employee are permitted to occupy the residential

quarters of the prior place of posting. He would submit that even

accepting that residential quarters were not vacated, the same does

not constitute misconduct inviting major penalty of dismissal from

service.

11.He would further submit that charge no. 6 as regards the

misconduct under Rule 3 is connected to the other charges and as none

of the charges except the charge of non-vacating of residential

premises are proved , even charge no. 6 is not proved. He submits that

the findings of the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence and is

therefore, unsustainable.

12.Per contra, Ms. Helaskar learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 3 would submit that even in the past, the Petitioner

Sairaj 7 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

was issued show-cause notice for misconduct. She would further

submit that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on evidence

which has come on record and therefore, this Court would be slow to

interfere where there was some evidence on record to reach the said

conclusion. She submits that adequacy of evidence cannot constitute

ground for interference by the High Court in exercise of powers under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

13.She would further point out that charge no. 1 as regards non-

handing over of complete charge was proved on the basis of

communication of 9

th

January, 2012 addressed by Shri. S. V. Kendre to

Block Development Officer and by reason of the fact that there was

cancellation of file nos. 101 to 116 which showed that the charge was

not handed over. She submits that other charges were linked to first

charge and therefore, stood duly proved. She would further submit

that in view of admission that the residential premises were not

vacated under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the penalty of dismissal from

service was rightly imposed. She would further submit that this Court

cannot re-appreciate the evidentiary findings or substitute its view

over that of Inquiry Officer. In support, she would rely upon the

following decisions :

Sairaj 8 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others

1

State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh

2

REASONS AND CONCLUSION :

14.Before proceeding to advert to the merits of the matter, it would

be prudent to bear in mind the limitations on the power of High Court

while exercising powers under Article 226 or Article 227 of the

Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings. In Union of India vs. P.

Gunasekaran

3

, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the scope of

interference with disciplinary proceedings as under:

“12.………The High Court, in exercise of its powers

under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall

not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The

High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent

authority:

(b) the enquiry is held according to procedure

prescribed in that behalf

(c) there is violation of principles of natural

justice

(d) the authorities have not disabled

themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by

some consideration extraneous to the

evidence and merits of the case.

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to

be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous

considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so

wholly arbitrary and capricious that no

reasonable person could ever have arrived at

such conclusion;

1 (1995) 6 SCC 749.

2 (2021) 12 SCC 569.

3 (2015) 2 SCC 610.

Sairaj 9 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously

failed to admit the admissible and material

evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously

admitted inadmissible evidence which

influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,

the High Court shall not:

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the

enquiry, in case the same has been conducted

in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on

which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it

may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment

unless it shocks its conscience.”

15.The purpose of examining the findings of the Inquiry Officer is

not to re-appreciate the evidence on record but to ascertain whether

the findings are based on evidence, in which case, this Court would be

slow to interfere as it is not the inadequacy of the evidence which vests

the power in this Court to interfere, but where the findings are based

on no evidence or there is failure to consider vital evidence which

demonstrates perversity.

Sairaj 10 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

16.Taking the charges leveled against the Petitioner ad seriatim, the

first Charge was of non-handing over of complete charge by the

Petitioner to Shri. Kendre. The statement of allegation in respect of

Charge no. 1 alleges that the Petitioner, upon being transferred from

Panchayat Samiti to Primary Health Centre, Mulshi, did not hand over

the complete charge of the Social Welfare Department files including

the files in respect of material received and distributed and therefore,

it appears that there is irregularity in distribution of material. Perusal

of the Inquiry Report would indicate that the Presenting Officer has

submitted that Chairman of Zilla Parishad has expressed displeasure

about the working of the Petitioner and that the Block Development

Officer had proposed initiation of inquiry for misconduct and the

confidential report of the Petitioner in respect of posting is

unsatisfactory.

17.The burden is upon the Respondent No 3 to prove the charges.

The Respondent No. 3 has adduced any oral or documentary evidence

in the inquiry proceedings. On the other hand, the Petitioner has

produced the statement of taking over charge from Shri Kendre on 9

th

January, 2012. Perusal of the said statement of taking over charge

would indicate that the files listed from serial nos. 101 to 116 have

been canceled by striking out the said serial numbers. Most

importantly, the endorsement below the said statement is that the

Sairaj 11 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

Petitioner has taken over charge of Serial Nos 1 to 100. The statement

also bears the endorsement of Shri S. V. Kendre who had handed over

the charge, that charge has een given. In the communication of 9

th

January, 2012 addressed by Shri Kendre which is at page no. 131-132 of

same date, as far as page no. 131 is concerned, the endorsement by

the Petitioner is that charge has been taken over of files from serial

nos. 1 to 100 which is also endorsed by the said Shri. S. V. Kendre and in

the communication of the same date of 9

th

January, 2012 at page no.

132, there appears to be an overwriting in the number of the serial and

number 100 is overwritten as number 117. The overwriting is clear to

the naked eye. There is clear evidence of tampering with the official

documents.

18.The Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the document produced

by the Petitioner and has held that Petitioner has failed to handover

the charge of files from serial 101 to serial no. 116. Notably, the

Inquiry Officer observed there was some discrepancy about handing

over and taking over of charge which is evident from its observations

that such handing over and taking over of charge should have taken

place in the presence of superior officer. The Respondent No. 3 did not

lead the best evidence available by examining Shri S. V Kendre who

would have explained about the overwriting and would have also

deposed about the files of which charge was handed over to the

Sairaj 12 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

Petitioner. By reason of withholding of evidence of Shri Kendre, the

Inquiry Officer ought to have drawn adverse inference against the

Respondent No 3.

19. The Inquiry Officer has ignored the vital evidence of the

endorsements appearing on the end of the statement of handing over

charge, the communication dated 9

th

January, 2012 and the overwriting

in serial number of the files in the communication. The Inquiry Officer

has taken into consideration only the striking of the Serial Nos 100 to

116 from the statement of charge to hold that the allegation of non

handing over of complete charge has been proved. The finding of the

Inquiry Officer is not supported by any evidence on record and is

therefore perverse.

20.Dealing next with the charge of negligence in conduct of duties,

apart from the allegation of non handing over of complete charge, the

allegation is that the Petitioner has failed to maintain the files in

respect of receipt and disbursement of material from the social

welfare department and that being in charge of education department

has not presented the salary bills on time and has not deposited the

salary deductions in time. The statement of allegation is vague and

bereft of any particulars as regards the time period during which the

delay had occurred. There are no specifics as to when the salary bills

were submitted, which would have demonstrated the delay and would

Sairaj 13 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

have also enabled the Petitioners to respond accordingly. As the

statement of allegations did not set out the requisite particulars, the

Petitioner was put to a disadvantage in submitting his defence.

21.Apart from the vague allegations contained in the statement of

allegations, the Respondent No 3 did adduce any oral or documentary

evidence in support of the said allegation. No records were produced

by the Respondent No 3 to prove the delay in presenting the salary

bills or deposit of deductions and no witness was examined in support

of the said charge. The entire documentary record was in possession of

the Respondent No 3 and was not adduced, which mandated drawing

of adverse inference.

22. The Inquiry Officer failed to consider the order of 30

th

August,

2010 produced by Petitioner stating that the responsibility of sending

salary bills and deposit of deductions was entrusted to other clerk and

also that on 9

th

January, 2012, Shri S. V. Kendre had not handed over

the said files as regards the receipt and disbursement of material.

There is no discussion and no finding of the Inquiry Officer on the

documentary evidence produced by Petitioner. The Inquiry officer has

accepted that there is no evidence produced by Respondent No. 3 and

thereafter goes on to holds the charge to be proved on the ground

that there is mention of earlier allegation about non handing over of

the complete charge. As the charge no. 1 itself is not proved, the

Sairaj 14 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

charge no. 2 also stands disproved. The statement of allegations in

respect of Charge No 2 was not confined only to non-handing over of

complete charge, but also included charge of delayed submission of

salary bills and salary deductions. In view of the documentary evidence

produced by the Petitioner, it was incumbent on the Inquiry Officer to

deal with the evidence, which has been ignored by the Inquiry Officer.

23.Insofar as the Charge no. 3 of misappropriation of government

funds is concerned, the charge is very serious in nature which if proved,

would have justified the termination of Petitioner’s services. The

allegation is that OPD sum of Rs. 2,018/- was not deposited in the

Bank and has been misappropriated by the Petitioner. As usual, there is

no oral and documentary evidence produced by Respondent No. 3. The

Petitioner has produced the Bank challan showing the deposit of

amount in the Bank through the Medical Officer which finding was

noticed by the Inquiry Officer. Despite noticing the said evidence, the

Inquiry Officer has held the charge is linked to charge no. 1 of non

handing over the complete charge by the Petitioner and therefore,

held the charge to be partly proved. There is absolutely no connection

between charge of misappropriation of government funds and non-

handing of charge by the Petitioner and no basis for connecting the

two charges. The findings indicate a sustained attempt to hold against

the Petitioner on all counts despite absence of any cogent evidence on

Sairaj 15 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

record.

24.Insofar as Charge no. 4 is concerned, the allegation is that for the

year 2011-2012, the records were not made available for the purpose

of audit. The statement of allegation is extremely vague and no

details as regards the files which were not made available for the

purpose of audit for the year 2011-2012. The only allegation is that the

auditor has expressed displeasure over non-availability of files. In order

to prove the charge, it was necessary to lead some evidence to prove

that files were not made available by the Petitioner. No evidence was

led by the Respondent No 3 and even the audit report was not placed

on record to establish that any adverse remarks about delayed handing

over of the files was recorded by the auditor.

25. The Inquiry Officer accepted that Respondent No. 3 has not

produced any evidence in that respect, however held that the

allegation is partly proved because the Petitioner did not submit any

evidence to show that all files were made available. Firstly it is the duty

of the Respondent No. 3 to establish the Charge and secondly without

any specific details as to the files which were not made available during

the audit for the year 2011-2012, it was virtually impossible for the

Petitioner to make any submissions or produce any evidence in that

respect. The records were in the possession of Respondent No. 3 and

therefore, the Petitioner even otherwise could not have produced any

Sairaj 16 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

record.

26.Insofar as the allegation about non-vacating of residential

premises, the Petitioner has admitted that the government premises

were retained and has stated that he is ready and willing to pay the

necessary rent for occupying the said premises.

27.Insofar as the charge of misconduct under Rule 3 of the Conduct

Rules of 1967 is concerned, the said charge is dependent on the other

charges alleged against the Petitioner. Except the Charge of non-

vacating of residential premises, the rest of the charges have not been

proved.

28.Rule 4 of Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964 provides for

imposition of penalty for good and sufficient reasons and sets out the

penalties therein as under :

“4. Nature of penalties – Without prejudice to the provisions

of any law for the time being in force, the following penalties

may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter

provided, be imposed on a Parishad servant namely :-

(i) censure;

(ii) withholding of increments or promotion;

(iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any

pecuniary loss caused to the Zilla Parishad by

negligence or breach of orders;

(iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a

lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale;

(v) compulsory retirement;

(vi) removal from service which shall not be a

disqualification for future employment;

Sairaj 17 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

(vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a

disqualification for future employment;

(viii) fine not exceeding rupees ten in respect of a

Parishad servant belonging to the District Service

(Class IV) and fine not exceeding rupees twenty-five in

respect of temporary Parishad servant belonging to

the District Technical Service (Class III) or District

Service (Class III).

Explanation:……...”

29.The term “misconduct” has not been defined in the Conduct

Rules of 1967 or the Discipline and Appeal Rules of 1964. Rule 3 of the

Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (Conduct) Rules, 1967 mandates that every

employee must maintain absolute integrity, discharge his duties and

avoid conduct which is unbecoming of a public servant. Rule 7 of the

applicable Rules would indicate that penalties from (i) to (iv) are in

nature of minor penalties whereas the penalties from (v) to (viii) fall

within the ambit of major penalties. There is no submission canvassed

by Ms. Helaskar, that the conduct of non vacating the residential

quarters, would invite major penalty of dismissal and indeed such a

submission could not have been canvassed.

30.This is a classic case where despite no evidence being led by the

Respondent No 3, the Inquiry Officer has reached a conclusion that all

charges have been proved. Even the charge of non vacating the

residential premises is not proved by adducing evidence by

Respondent No 3 but by reason of admission by the Petitioner himself.

Sairaj 18 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

The findings of the Inquiry Officer are therefore based on no evidence.

31.In the decision of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (supra), the

Hon’ble Apex Court considered the issue of justification of interfering

with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It held that

if the High Court reached a finding that there was some evidence to

reach the conclusion, it become unassessable and the High Court had

no jurisdiction to direct re-consideration of order of penalty. It further

held that though High Court did not function as Court of Appeal, when

the finding was utterly perverse, the High Court can always interfere

with the same.

32.In State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex

Court has considered the scope of exercising judicial review in

disciplinary matters and has held as under:

“37.....Within the rule of preponderance, there are

varying approaches based on context and spectrum. The

first end of spectrum is founded on deference and

autonomy-deference to the position of the disciplinary

authority as a fact finding authority and autonomy of the

employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of

service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle

that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the

findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or

when they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider

vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards as a

perverse determination of fact. Proportionality is

entrenched feature of our jurisprudence. Service

jurisprudence has recognised it for long years in allowing

for the authority of the court to interfere when the

finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight

of the evidence or misconduct….”

Sairaj 19 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

33.The Hon’ble Apex Court has defined the fine balance which is

required to be maintained while exercising judicial review in

disciplinary matters. The Courts are not disabled from interfering with

the findings in inquiry proceedings, where the findings are perverse

and unsustainable based on no evidence. This is precisely the case in

the present proceedings. There is not an iota of evidence which has

been adduced by the Respondent No 3 and the Inquiry Officer has held

that all charges are proved. It is not a case of inadequacy of evidence

but a case of no evidence which would warrant interference under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

34.Based on the Inquiry Report which concluded that all charges

were proved, the drastic punishment of termination from service,

which is a major penalty, has been imposed on the Petitioner. The

findings of the Inquiry Officer being perverse are unsustainable and

are required to be quashed and set aside except the Charge of non

handing over of government quarters, which charge has been admitted

by the Petitioner himself. By itself, the non vacating of the government

quarters is not a substantial misconduct. The penalty of termination

from service is disproportionate to the charge of non handing over of

government premises on transfer.

35.In B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (supra), the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held in paragraph 18 as under:

Sairaj 20 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

“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

authority 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.”

36.The order of termination by the Disciplinary Authority was based

on acceptance of Inquiry Report, which had held that all charges

against the Petitioner are proved. The findings of the Inquiry Officer on

all charges except Charge No 5 have been set aside. It is not a case

where though all charges have been proved, the penalty being

disproportionate is required to be set side, but, a case where the

findings are found to be perverse based on no evidence and only one

charge is proved, which is not a substantial misconduct. The order of

dismissal is of the year 2015 and in order to shorten the litigation, in

my view, the punishment can be moulded by this Court. Considering

the nature of Charge No 5 and the readiness of the Petitioner to pay

the rent for the use of the residential premises, in my view, the penalty

under Rule 4(iii) of Discipline and Appeal Rules can be imposed.

37.The Respondent No 3 is entitled to recover from pay of the

Petitioner the whole of the pecuniary loss caused to the Zilla Parishad

by reason of non vacating of the residential property after transfer

Sairaj 21 of 22

WP-7416-2023 (final).doc

taking into consideration the period of occupation.

38.In light of above, the Petition partly succeeds. The impugned

order of termination of service is quashed and set aside and the

penalty under Rule 4(iii) of Discipline and Appeal Rules is imposed.

Subject to the penalty imposed, the Petitioner is reinstated to the post

of Junior Assistant with the continuity of service, backwages and other

consequential benefits.

39. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Sairaj 22 of 22