Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2009 (ALL)

GULBIR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-09-22

SANJAY MISRA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri K.M. Asthana learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. 2. When this writ petition was filed in the year 2000 learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that availability of a statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and this Court had, therefore, entertained the writ petition and recorded that if the principles of natural justice have been violated and proper procedure has not been followed, then writ petition can be entertained as also for consideration as to whether the dismissal is highly disproportionate to the misconduct even if it be taken to have been established against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed after holding of an enquiry. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, he had raised a question of bias against the Sub Divisional Officer who had initiated the enquiry on the ground that the charges made against the petitioner related to abusing the said Sub Divisional Officer. For this submission, he has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee and others, (1993) 4 SCC 10 and in the case of Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamala Prasad Shukla and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 21. 4. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated by the enquiry officer. He did not supply the relevant documents/name of witnesses who were to be relied upon even during the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced in his defence. He places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, Supreme Court Service Rulings Volume 6 Page 614 : (1987) Supp SCC 518 as also on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, (1998) 6 SCC 651 . 5. He places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, Supreme Court Service Rulings Volume 6 Page 614 : (1987) Supp SCC 518 as also on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, (1998) 6 SCC 651 . 5. It has been stated that even after submission of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer who was the Tehsildar, the Sub Divisional Officer who was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner had been influenced by the recommendation of the enquiry officer inasmuch as the disciplinary authority was himself associated with the entire proceedings and for the aforesaid submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 . 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 to contend that the procedure prescribed under the Rules for imposing major penalties is mandatory and in the present case, the various sub-clauses of the Rule have been violated and hence the entire proceedings are bad. He has referred to Rule 7(iii) to state that the charges are required to be precise and clear and in the present case, the charges themselves were vague and the witnesses/documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not the only evidence considered by enquiry officer. According to him, the witnesses who have been examined by the enquiry officer and upon whose statement the conclusions have been arrived, were never mentioned in the charge-sheet and therefore, there has been a violation of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules. The further submission is that the provisions of Rule 7(ix) and (x) have been violated inasmuch as no date, time or place was fixed for the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced for violation not only of the mandatory provisions but also the principles of natural justice. 7. The further submission is that the provisions of Rule 7(ix) and (x) have been violated inasmuch as no date, time or place was fixed for the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced for violation not only of the mandatory provisions but also the principles of natural justice. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has referred to the charge-sheet, enquiry report and the impugned order of dismissal to contend that there has been compliance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules and the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been prejudiced due to violation of the principles of natural justice are not correct from the record itself. He has justified the impugned order of punishment by saying that this Court would not substitute itself for the enquiry officer for the purpose of upsetting the conclusion arrived at on the basis of evidences nor would it substitute itself for the disciplinary autho-rity because the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not disproportionate to the misconduct found proved against him. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has then referred to his supplementary affidavit filed on 10.1.2007 to contend that after the aforesaid proceedings had concluded by passing of the dismissal order, he had made an application before the District Magistrate on 24.7.2003 and the District Magistrate had required a report to be submitted before him. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the District Magistrate, the Tehsildar has submitted his report dated 24.8.2003 a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the Tehsildar has gone through the entire enquiry report as also the evidences recorded by the enquiry officer and has come to the conclusion that from the very same evidences, the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved and has recommended dropping of all further proceedings. 9. To this supplementary affidavit, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents wherein they have annexed an order dated 31.8.2007 (Annexure 2 to the supplementary counter affidavit) stating that the aforesaid report dated 24.8.2003 of the Tehsildar has not been accepted and they have refused to interfere in the dismissal order passed against the petitioner. 10. 10. In a supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has stated that the order dated 31.8.2007 was passed only after this Court on 16.8.2007 had granted time to the State respondents to file reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. According to him, the report of the Tehsildar was given on 24.8.2003 and the order dated 31.8.2007 has been passed only after the petitioner had brought the said report on record of the writ petition by filing supplementary affidavit. He states that the order having been passed after four years of the report cannot be accepted since it is required that the proceedings should have been concluded within a reasonable time. 11. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not deny that the aforesaid order dated 31.8.2007 filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit whereby the report made by the Tehsildar on 24.8.2003 has not been accepted by the disciplinary authority and it is not under challenge in this writ petition. Consequently, the validity of the order dated 31.8.2007 insofar as it has not accepted the report dated 24.8.2003 of the Tehsildar is concerned, this Court is not required to consider the same. 12. From the record it appears that a charge-sheet dated 11.8.2000 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) was served on the petitioner on 18.8.2000. There are two charges framed against the petitioner. The first is that on 27.4.2000 the petitioner came to the office of the Sub Divisional Officer in an intoxicated condition and abused the employees and senior officers by using derogatory language whereby the Government work was obstructed and the discipline of the office was disturbed. In support of this charge, the charge-sheet refers to the evidence in the form of statement of Sri Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Sri Vipin Kumar Dixit and Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma described as employees of the office. It also refers to the enquiry report dated 29.4.2000 submitted by the Tehsildar, Hathras. It refers to news item published on 28/29.4.2000 in the daily newspapers Dainik Samachar and Amar Ujala as evidence in support of the charge. 13. It also refers to the enquiry report dated 29.4.2000 submitted by the Tehsildar, Hathras. It refers to news item published on 28/29.4.2000 in the daily newspapers Dainik Samachar and Amar Ujala as evidence in support of the charge. 13. Charge No. 2 relates to the petitioner abusing the senior authorities by using derogatory words outside the office on the public road which has been alleged to be a violation of the disciplinary rules and in support of aforesaid charge the evidence of Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Vipin Kumar Dixit, Radhey Shyam Sharma has been cited. The enquiry report of the Tehsildar, Hathras dated 29.4.2000 and the news item published on 28/29.4.2000 in Dainik Samachar and Amar Ujala have also been referred as evidence against the petitioner and the petitioner has been required to submit his reply. 14. From the aforesaid charge-sheet, it is quite apparent that the charges are clear and they are not vague. The first charge relates to misbehaviour in an intoxicated condition inside the office of the Sub Divisional Officer on 27.4.2000 and the second charge relates to the misbehaviour outside the office of the Sub Divisional Officer on a public road on 27.4.2000. The misconduct alleged is of going to the office in an intoxicated state, abusing the officers and using derogatory language against the employees and officers. The second charge also refers to similar conduct outside the office on the public road. The evidences sought to be relied against the petitioner has been detailed in the charge-sheet itself. Consequently, the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet is in violation of the provisions of Rule 7(iii) of the 1999 Rules cannot be accepted since there is no vagueness in the charges made against the petitioner and the evidences sought to be relied against the petitioner have been specifically mentioned therein. From a perusal of the record it is clear that no such ground or averment has been taken or made, but learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued the point. Such argument is misplaced even otherwise. 15. Insofar as the enquiry report is concerned, the petitioner’s grievance is of violation of the principles of natural justice. From a perusal of the record it is clear that no such ground or averment has been taken or made, but learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued the point. Such argument is misplaced even otherwise. 15. Insofar as the enquiry report is concerned, the petitioner’s grievance is of violation of the principles of natural justice. A perusal of the enquiry report dated 12.10.2000 (annexed as a part of Annexure 16 to the writ petition) indicates that : (a) A preliminary report dated 29.4.2000 of the incident alleged was submitted by the Tehsildar, Hathras to the District Magistrate. The Tehsildar has also reported that an FIR under Sections 353, 332 and 536, I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Hathras Gate. (b) The petitioner had given an application dated 5.9.2000 for being supplied certain copies and in his explanation, he had denied the charges made against him. (c) Evidences of Sri Radhey Shyam, Sri Vipin Kumar Rai, Sri Ravindra Kumar Ahalmad Mal and Advocates present apart from those mentioned in the charge-sheet was recorded in the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. (d) The petitioner denied in his reply that the aforesaid persons, upon whose evidences the preliminary enquiry has been based, were present at the time of the incident. (e) It is quite clear from the enquiry report that the Charge No. 1 was earlier investigated by the erstwhile Tehsildar in an open enquiry and the disciplinary/departmental proceedings were initiated after the recommendation made by him wherein, the evidence of Sri Ramesh Chandra Sroti Advocate and Sri Murari Lal Peshkar had been taken by him. (f) The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet and said that he had come to the office of the District Magistrate on 27.4.2000 to collect the money required for white washing, but the same was refused and the officer used abusive language against the petitioner. (g) He also stated that Sri Pratap Singh Ahalmad was not present. Murari Lal’s statement and Ravindra Kumar’s statement have not stated that Pratap Singh was present at the time of the incident and therefore, the averments made by the petitioner in his explanation that abusive language was used by the higher authorities against him cannot be believed. (h) The enquiry officer has been proceeded to consider the parawise reply given by the petitioner and the evidence of Ravindra Kumar was taken and cross-examination conducted. (h) The enquiry officer has been proceeded to consider the parawise reply given by the petitioner and the evidence of Ravindra Kumar was taken and cross-examination conducted. In fact, the enquiry report has quoted the question and answer given by Sri Ravindra Kumar regarding the aforesaid charge. The aforesaid statement of Ravindra Kumar indicates that he has deposed against the petitioner. (i) Regarding the Charge No. 2, it has again been stated that the Tehsildar, Hathras had got an enquiry conducted and an enquiry report had been produced before him in the regular enquiry wherein, it was reported that apart from the employees of the office, there were advocates also present who had heard the aforesaid incident and had made statement in the aforesaid preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer while considering the aforesaid report has recorded that the statement of Sri Ramesh Chandra Sroti Advocate as well as the statement of Sri Murari Lal Peshkar are available in writing. These statements appear to have been made in a preliminary enquiry whereafter the regular departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. (j) The enquiry officer has considered the parawise reply given by the petitioner to the charge-sheet and has recorded that the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, namely, Sri Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Sri Vipin Kumar Dixit and Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma have been examined. The newspaper report has also been considered. (k) It has been recorded that the aforesaid witnesses were to be examined on the date and notice of 25.8.2000 was sent to the petitioner. On the said date, all the witnesses as well as the petitioner was present, but because the examination/cross-examination could not be done, a fresh date of 30.8.2000 was fixed and notice was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner refused to accept the notice and therefore, on the said date the witnesses could not be examined because of the absence of the petitioner. (l) The next date was fixed on 6.9.2000 on which date the witnesses came and their statements were recorded, but because the cross-examination of Sri Ravindra Kumar Sharma could not be completed, 7.9.2000 was fixed and on 7.9.2000 the petitioner completed the cross-examination of the third witness. (m) A further date was fixed for 8.9.2000 but the petitioner did not appear on that date but the witnesses did appear. (m) A further date was fixed for 8.9.2000 but the petitioner did not appear on that date but the witnesses did appear. (n) On 9.9.2000, the petitioner submitted an application that he is going out of station and he cannot examine the other witnesses upto 15.9.2000, hence 16.9.2000 was fixed, but the petitioner again made an application that he is going out of station and would return only on 18.9.2000 and will do the examination of the other witnesses thereafter. (o) On 22.9.2000, the petitioner appeared and the witnesses were present, but he refused to examine them and also stated that now he does not want to examine any other witness. (p) The enquiry officer having recorded the fixing of date, time and place during the enquiry and the participation and non-participation of the petitioner, proceeded to consider the evidence of Sri Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma and Sri Rajendra Singh who had deposed against the petitioner. He has also considered the cross-examination done of the aforesaid witnesses as also examination done of Sri Murari Lal Peshkar and other witnesses who appeared when the petitioner had refused to examine them. 16. From the aforesaid recitation, it is clear that although the petitioner cooperated in the enquiry for examination of the witnesses referred to in the charge-sheet, but when the other witnesses whose statement were taken in the preliminary enquiry were produced, the petitioner refused to examine them. Admittedly, the preliminary enquiry report and evidence recorded therein was a part of the evidence mentioned in the charge-sheet, hence, these witnesses cannot be said to have not been mentioned for relying against the petitioner. The enquiry officer proceeded to conduct an oral enquiry with respect to the statement of those witnesses who were produced during the enquiry proceedings and who were refused to be examined by the petitioner. Upon the aforesaid evidences, the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner had been proved. 17. It is these proceedings which the petitioner alleges to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and recording of evidence of the persons who were not referred to in the charge-sheet and has been considered by the enquiry officer and hence, the petitioner has been prejudiced. 18. 17. It is these proceedings which the petitioner alleges to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and recording of evidence of the persons who were not referred to in the charge-sheet and has been considered by the enquiry officer and hence, the petitioner has been prejudiced. 18. Insofar as the aforesaid submission is concerned, it cannot be denied that the persons referred to in the charge-sheet have been examined and cross-examined by the petitioner and the preliminary enquiry report of the Tehsildar which is referred to in the charge-sheet as an evidence has been considered in detail by the enquiry officer. Till a particular date mentioned in the enquiry report, the petitioner cooperated in cross-examining the witnesses but when the other witnesses who deposed in the preliminary enquiry were called in since the preliminary enquiry report was mentioned as an evidence in the charge-sheet, the petitioner was required to face them and the witnesses to face the petitioner. Therefore, the fact that is available on record indicates that the witnesses and evidences cited in the charge-sheet were duly examined and cross-examined and their evidences have been considered by the enquiry officer. The name of witnesses not mentioned in the charge-sheet are those witnesses who had given statement during the preliminary enquiry and their names occurred in the report dated 29.4.2000 which was admittedly an evidence clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet to be relied against the petitioner. The petitioner was faced with the said witnesses as also the preliminary enquiry report dated 29.4.2000 which was mentioned in the charge-sheet as an evidence. It was the petitioner’s decision not to cross-examine the witnesses who had given statement in the preliminary enquiry and it formed part of the report dated 29.4.2000 which was mentioned as an evidence in the charge-sheet. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the statement of Sri Ramesh Chandra Sroti Advocate and Sri Murari Lal Peshkar were not mentioned in the charge-sheet is not correct inasmuch as the statement of these persons were taken in the preliminary enquiry which formed part of the recommendation in the report dated 29.4.2000 submitted by the Tehsildar Hathras which was a part of the evidence to be relied against the petitioner and particularly mentioned in the charge-sheet itself. The submission contrary thereto by learned Counsel for the petitioner is not only against the entire evidence on record but is false on the basis of the record itself. Arguments on factual issues are to be supported with the facts available from the record. Such arguments which are not based on facts or record are not only frivolous but entail waste of time of the Courts. 19. From the aforesaid facts on record, it is apparent that the petitioner knew and was informed what evidence he has to meet, he was confronted with the evidence relied upon against him, he was not denied any opportunity by the enquiry officer, he himself chose to boycott the enquiry mid-way. He was served with a show-cause notice alongwith the enquiry report (Annexure 16) and was given an effective opportunity at every stage of the proceedings where the principles of natural justice and the Rules required. 20. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. The petitioner was admittedly supplied with the enquiry report along with the show-cause notice dated 16/18.10.2000 (Annexure 16 to the writ petition). The documents/evidence relied against him in the enquiry were clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet and the documents were given to him on 5.9.2000. Such documents in the form of preliminary enquiry report dated 29.4.2000 and newspaper reports were given to him and find reference in his explanation dated 21.8.2000 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). Therefore, the reliance place on the decision in the case of State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal (supra) is totally misplaced. The enquiry officer has given his findings on the evidence duly disclosed to the petitioner at every stage. Opportunity is to be extended by the authority and it should be reasonable opportunity. In case an employee does not avail of repeated opportunities extended to him, then he himself is responsible. There cannot be an unnatural expansion of the principles of natural justice by saying that proceedings should not proceed even when after repeated opportunities, the employee after participating subsequently absents/boycotts the proceedings and makes a statement that he does not want to examine the witnesses present. The decision in the case of Chandrama Tiwari (supra) has no application in the circumstances and the facts of this case. 21. The decision in the case of Chandrama Tiwari (supra) has no application in the circumstances and the facts of this case. 21. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and then stated that he does not want to examine any witness further. He did not participate in the proceedings thereafter. The enquiry officer proceeded with the oral enquiry. He was competent to do so as has been held in the cases of State of U.P. v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, (1996) 10 SCC 702 and followed in the subsequent decisions of this Court. 22. Upon the enquiry report being submitted before the disciplinary authority, the impugned order dated 13.11.2000 has been passed. The disciplinary authority has clearly recorded that it agrees with the recommendations of the enquiry officer and while considering the gravity of the offence found proved against the petitioner he has passed the order of removal from service/dismissal. The aforesaid order has admittedly been passed after issuing of show-cause notice and supplying the enquiry report to the petitioner, which is quite apparent from Annexure 16 to the writ petition which is a show-cause notice dated 16.10.2000 accompanied with the enquiry report. 23. It is this order dated 13.11.2000 against which the petitioner appears to have made an application (not contemplated under the Rules of 1999) before the District Magistrate referred to in the supplementary affidavit. However, since the subsequent report obtained by the District Magistrate from the Tehsildar regarding the enquiry proceedings which were the basis for the order of dismissal has not been accepted by him and the same has not been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition, no further consideration is required by this Court. 24. Insofar as the question of bias is concerned, it will be seen from the record and it is not denied by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Sub Divisional Officer is the competent disciplinary authority of the petitioner and the District Magistrate is the appointing authority of the petitioner. Admittedly, the enquiry was not conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar and the regular enquiry was conducted by the another Tehsildar. The bias alleged is against the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer was not involved in the incident as is quite apparent from his Memo dated 28.4.2000 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar and the regular enquiry was conducted by the another Tehsildar. The bias alleged is against the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer was not involved in the incident as is quite apparent from his Memo dated 28.4.2000 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). In this Memo he had recorded that he has been informed by the Employees about the incident of 27.4.2000. He has clearly recorded that a proceeding under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. is pending before him against two persons and he has been informed that the Lekhpal (Petitioner) came with them in an intoxicated state and committed the incident. The written information given to him by the employees was also forwarded by this Memo. The Sub Divisional Officer acted on the information given to him and required the Tehsildar to submit a report. For the said purpose, the petitioner had represented the matter to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate has got the entire matter re-enquired by re-assessing the entire evidence of the enquiry officer and the report of the enquiry officer. Such report obtained thereafter has been rejected by the District Magistrate and since it has not been challenged requires no interference by this Court. 25. In the case of Ratan Lal Sharma (supra) one person appeared as a witness in the inquiry and deposed against the employees. This very person was also a member of the Enquiry Committee. The Employee objected before the Committee and stated that the member who had appeared as a witness against him was inimical and should not be a member of the Inquiry Committee. Such objection was rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 held as quoted hereunder : “10....................One of the cardinal principles of natural justice is nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no man shall be a judge in his own cause). The deciding authority must be impartial and without bias. It has been held by this Court in Secretary to Government, Transport Department v. Munuswamy Mudaliar that a predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias. Personal bias is one of the three major limbs namely pecuniary bias, personal bias and official bias. A classic case of personal bias was revealed in the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh. Personal bias is one of the three major limbs namely pecuniary bias, personal bias and official bias. A classic case of personal bias was revealed in the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh. In the said case, a departmental inquiry was held against an employee. One of the witnesses against the employee turned hostile. The officer holding the inquiry then left the inquiry, gave evidence against the employee and thereafter resumed to complete the inquiry and passed the order of dismissal. This Court quashed the order of dismissal by holding inter alia that the rules of natural justice were grievously violated.” 26. In Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “There is a distinction between a defect in the Enquiry and a lapse which almost destroys the Enquiry”..... “Besides where a delinquent is asked to appear before a Committee of which one member is deeply hostile towards him, the delinquent would be greatly handicapped in conducting his defence as he would be inhibited by the atmosphere prevailing in the Enquiry Room”.....”However, the bias must be strong and hostile and not a mere allegation of bias of a superior having rebuked him in the past or the like?” 27. Now coming to the present case, it will be seen that the averments of bias and malafide are mainly contained in paragraphs 5, 30 and 39 of the writ petition and in paragraphs 16 and 25 of the rejoinder affidavit. While applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the pleadings of bias made in this writ petition do not satisfy the basic test for recording that the proceedings were biased against the petitioner. The petitioner has not successfully pleaded bias and the averments are so vague, uncertain and appear to be only allegations made by him knowing very well that he has not been able to establish on facts that the bias alleged is neither strong nor hostile. For the aforesaid reasons, insofar as bias is alleged, it is not effectively pleaded nor successfully shown on record and the petitioner has failed to show that he has been prejudiced in any manner. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, insofar as bias is alleged, it is not effectively pleaded nor successfully shown on record and the petitioner has failed to show that he has been prejudiced in any manner. 28. In view of the aforementioned circumstances and the reasons given, it cannot be held that the charge-sheet was vague, that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the Enquiry or that the allegations of bias made are in any manner acceptable. 29. The punishment of removal from service has been awarded to the petitioner. The charges against him have been established in the enquiry and the disciplinary authority has recorded its approval and agreement with the enquiry report. In fact, the disciplinary authority has given detailed reasons for such agreement. The misconduct proved was of being in an intoxicated state abusing employees and officers inside the office thereby obstructing the work in the Government Office. This misconduct was committed in the confines of the office. The other misconduct of similar behaviour was committed outside the office on the public road where not only other employees were present, but advocates and other persons. The incident was flashed in the newspapers which were also an evidence mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner has not only shown dis-respect to his own position but has also maligned the employees and senior officers in public. 30. There has to be maintained discipline in Government Service. In case employees and senior officers are maligned in open public gaze, what respect the authority can command. Once maligned, they can be prone to similar treatment by other for vested interest. The officers and employees stand unprotected for all times to come if such serious misconduct is not adequately punished. The rule of law has to be upheld and any person indulging in contributing to destroy the rule of law cannot be given any sympathy. In fact if sympathy for any other reason is shown, it would not only be detrimental to future discipline, but would squarely come within the ambit of a misplaced sympathy. Undue sympathy to impose in adequate punishment does more harm to the justice delivery system than it would augur well for the employee. It is settled law that awarding of punishment by the competent authority is not normally open to judicial review. Undue sympathy to impose in adequate punishment does more harm to the justice delivery system than it would augur well for the employee. It is settled law that awarding of punishment by the competent authority is not normally open to judicial review. Only when the punishment is such that it pricks the conscience of the Court that interference is permissible if a disproportionate punishment is awarded. 31. As already narrated above, this Court does not find that the punishment awarded to the petitioner can be said to be disproportionate to the charges found established and proved against him in an enquiry held which cannot be faulted. The law is settled as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deo Singh v. Punjab Development Corporation, (2003) 8 SCC 9 ; Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 ; Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain, AIR 2005 SC 584 . 32. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 33. No order is passed as to costs. ————