Judgment:
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ms. B. Goyal appears for the respondent/State.
2. Writ petitioner, who was working as a peon in the office of the District Judge, Tezpur is before this Court to challenge the dismissal order dated 03.11.2000, passed against him in pursuance to a Disciplinary Proceedings drawn up against him. The petitioner is also contending that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges made against him
3. A disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner while being posted as a peon in the Office of the District Judge, Tezpur by placing him under suspension by order dated 23.12.1999. A show cause notice dated 16.2.2000 was issued to him requiring him to show cause as to why a departmental enquiry should not be held against him for being an accused in connection with Tezpur Police Station Case No. 709/99. The petitioner in his reply dated 23.02.2000 denied the charge and requested for deferment of the departmental proceedings till after the criminal case gets concluded.
4. The petitioner's request for postponement of the departmental enquiry did not find favour with the disciplinary authority and a charge sheet dated 16.03.2000 was served on him containing the following 6 (six) charges:
(1) With the ulterior motive of kidnapping Miss Jina Das, you had obtained earned leave with effect from 15.12.1999 to 31.12.1999 on the pretext of your son's treatment and as such you have violated the office norms and discipline.
(2) That by kidnapping Jina Das, you have committed an offence involving moral turpitude and as such you are charged with having violated the office rules and discipline.
(3) That you evaded the order of suspension communicated to you by absconding after having kidnapped Jina Das, you are hence charged with violating the office discipline and norms.
(4) By seeking extension of the previous leave granted to you by misrepresenting facts you have taken recourse to deceit and cheating the authority.
(5) Despite your spouse living, you had kidnapped Jina Das in order to marry her and as such you are charged with having committed an illegal act and your dubious nature has come to the surface.
(6) Why you should not be terminated from service for your misdeeds and for having defied the authority?
5. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted into the above charges made against the petitioner. The petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceeding and present his evidence. The petitioner however declined to adduce any evidence in the inquiry.
The Inquiry Officer by his order dated 12.07.2000 concluded that all the six charges have been proved against the petitioner.
6. Following the adverse enquiry finding against the petitioner, a second show cause notice, dated 19.07.2000 was issued and on considering the petitioner's reply, the impugned dismissal order dated 03.11.2000 was passed.
7. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order was rejected and by the order dated 30.09.2002, the order of dismissal was affirmed by the appellate authority.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the adverse Inquiry finding by contending that the petitioner was prejudiced in making his defence in the inquiry proceeding in as much as, he was simultaneously required to defend the criminal charges, as well, before the Criminal Court, arising from the very same incident and accordingly, this Court ought to interfere with the adverse finding, recorded against the petitioner.
9. It is also contended by Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not furnished with the list of witnesses and the list of documents at the beginning of the enquiry and accordingly he was denied a reasonable opportunity in defending the charges made against him.
10. The learned Counsel further contends that since the criminal charge of kidnapping could not be proved against the petitioner as he was acquitted by the Sessions Court on 03.05.2001, the adverse finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained.
11. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner and the victim girl have since resolved the dispute and both of them are now living together and accordingly contended that for this reason, the impugned punishment order and the inquiry findings are liable to be interfered with by this Court.
12. It is also submitted that considering the nature of the charges, disproportionately severe punishment of dismissal has been inflicted against the petitioner and only a lesser punishment would have been justified in the facts of the present case.
13. We have gone through the inquiry report dated 12.07.2000, given by the Inquiry Officer from where it can be clearly gathered that P.W. 3 Miss Jina Das, who was alleged to have been kidnapped by the petitioner, had clearly stated that she was forcibly taken away from her house by the petitioner on 18.12.1999. She categorically stated that her previous exonerating statement was on account of threat and coercion of the writ petitioner.
In view of the above evidence given by the victim girl in the inquiry proceeding and also the other evidences introduced, we are of the opinion that the adverse enquiry findings are based on appropriate evidence.
14. There is nothing to infer from the inquiry proceeding that the same was conducted in an unfair manner or that the delinquent was not provided with sufficient opportunity to defend the charges or any prejudice was caused to him in the inquiry. Under the circumstances, we see no justification as a Writ Court to interfere with the inquiry finding.
15. With regard to the contention made that the petitioner was prejudiced because he was required to simultaneously defend the charges in the Inquiry proceeding and in the Criminal trial, since law permits disciplinary inquiry as well as criminal proceeding to go on simultaneously, interference by this Court would not be justified on this score.
16. That as regards the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal charge by the criminal court, it is well settled that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial and in a disciplinary proceeding are entirely different and just because a person is acquitted in a criminal trial, would not by itself, warrant a clean verdict in the disciplinary inquiry proceeding.
17. So far as the further contention that the victim girl, who was kidnapped by the petitioner, is now living with the petitioner and is no more interested to charge the petitioner, we are of the view that such subsequent developments cannot be taken note of by a Court, to interfere with an adverse finding in as much as, such consideration, if shown, would enable persons to approach the Court for condonation of their guilty act, only because the victim, does not wish to pursue the charge against a delinquent.
18. It maybe noticed that the guilt finding has been recorded against the petitioner on the basis of appropriate evidence and materials adduced in the enquiry proceeding. The delinquent had a fair opportunity to participate in the proceeding and defend the charges made against him. It is definitely not a case of no evidence. Under such circumstances, because of the limited scope of interference by Writ Court in matters of this nature, we are of the opinion that this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned decisions taken by the disciplinary authorities against the petitioner.
19. On the submissions made that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charge, we are of the view that the charges proved against the petitioner including the charges of moral turpitude, along with other charge of misconduct, cannot be said to be of minor nature, justifying a lesser penalty. The disciplinary authority has recorded adequate reasons justifying the penalty of dismissal. We are of the view that no intervention with the said punishment order would be justified in the backdrop of the present case. In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is held to be without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.