2025:JHHC:11835 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.3302 of 2019 ----- Rabinder Ram, aged about 50 years, son of Bhuneshwar Paswan, resident of Laiyo Colony, PO Laiyo, PS Kedla, District Ramgarh … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PS Kotwali, PO and District Ranchi, through its Chairman cum Managing Director 2.Chairman cum Managing Director, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PS Kotwali, PO and District Ranchi 3. Director (Personnel), M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PS Kotwali, PO and District Ranchi 4.Project Officer, Purnadih Project, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, N.K.Area, Dakra, PO and PS Khelari, District Ranchi … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate …...... 15 /18.03.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been dismissed from service, but the punishment is harsh and does not commensurate with the proved misconduct. He submits that though the allegation against the petitioner is that he was accepting bribe from the illegal coal mining syndicate but there is nothing on record to suggest that he has actually accepted any amount. It is his contention that the money was thrown in his vehicle which the respondents projected the bribe money but the petitioner has no concerned with the same. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Central Coalfields Limited submits that in the departmental proceeding the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself which he had infact availed. He further submits that the fact finding authority has arrived at the finding that the petitioner had demanded and accepted bribe. The departmental proceeding proceeds on 2025:JHHC:11835 2 preponderance of probability and the nature of proof is not that of beyond reasonable doubts as in the criminal case. In this case on the principle of preponderance of probability the charge has been proved, and the witnesses have clearly supported the allegations. The CD (compact disc) which was produced was also not denied by the petitioner which is Exhibit Management-1 which also suggests the allegations against the petitioner stands proved. 4. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the departmental proceeding and the punishment inflicted. The petitioner has been dismissed from service. The law is well settled. In an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of punishment in a departmental proceeding the scope of interference is minimum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak” reported in (2008) 7 SCC 580, at para 14 has held as under- “14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.” 5. This Court is not an Appellate Court which can re-apprise the evidence and come to a different conclusion. If the conclusion arrived at is based on the evidence which is probable, the same has to be accepted by the Writ Court. In a case of punishment, if it is proved that his conduct is grave and punishment commensurate with the proved misconduct, this Court cannot interfere by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2025:JHHC:11835 3 6. In this case, the charge against the petitioner is that he has connived with the illegal coal miner and coal thieves and extended help to them in their illegal activities. As per the chargesheet which is at Annexure-1, the period of his activities has been specified i.e. from 18.11.2009 to 15.04.2015 while he was the Security In-charge. A video recording was also placed during an inquiry, in which he had demanded illegal gratification in the chamber. He accepted the same while he was sitting in his Bolero vehicle. He also provided them with tools while he was in office. 7. The charge which was levelled against him was inquired into and the inquiry officer found the charge of misconduct to be proved. The management witnesses gave their statement and submitted documents and exhibits. The Video recording was also exhibited. It is to be kept in mind that in a departmental proceeding the provision of the Evidence Act is not strictly applied. During inquiry past misconduct of this petitioner was also brought to the notice. After considering all the evidences the inquiry officer found that the allegation against the petitioner stands proved. 8. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case and there is no procedural illegality or irregularity. The second show-cause notice was also issued which was also replied. After considering all the aspects, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 9. What punishment has to be awarded in a departmental proceeding is the prerogative of the employer, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Krishna District Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. K. Hanumantha Rao”, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 528 has held as follows- “7.2. Even otherwise, the aforesaid reason could not be a valid reason for interfering with the punishment imposed. It is trite that courts, while exercising their power of judicial review over such matters, do not sit as the appellate authority. Decision qua the nature and quantum is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. It is not the function of the High Court to decide the same. It is only in exceptional circumstances, where it is found that the punishment/penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority/employer is wholly disproportionate, that too to an extent that it shakes the conscience of the court, that the court steps in and interferes.” 2025:JHHC:11835 4 10. Only in case of excessive punishment which shocks the conscious of the Court, the Court can interfere. In this case, since the petitioner was Security Officer and was helping the thieves who indulged in theft of coal, the offence is grievous. A person who is meant to protect the property of his employer, in turn helps thieves to steal them has to be dealt with heavy hands, thus the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. 11. Since there is no illegality or irregularity in the process and the punishment is also not too harsh, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment and the Appellate Order. The instant writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/ AFR