Court upholds findings of 2nd enquiry officer, quashes dismissal order, directs reevaluation of punishment.

The court upheld the findings of the second enquiry officer but quashed the order of dismissal, directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment within three months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Procedural lapses in the appointment of a second enquiry officer.
2. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal from service.
3. Scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Procedural Lapses in the Appointment of a Second Enquiry Officer:
The appellant was initially exonerated by the first enquiry officer who found no charges proven. However, the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dissatisfied with this finding, appointed a second enquiry officer. The second enquiry officer found some charges proven, leading to the appellant's dismissal. The appellant argued that appointing a second enquiry officer was impermissible after exoneration by the first. The court, however, did not find any procedural lapses warranting interference, referencing the judgment in *K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong*.

2. Proportionality of the Punishment of Dismissal from Service:
The appellant contended that the charges proven did not warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal. The court examined the charges:
- Absence from duty and allowing his son to perform his duty.
- Illegal construction in government quarters.
- Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which were compounded.
The court noted that while these charges were serious, the punishment of dismissal, which forfeited the appellant's 23 years of service, was disproportionate. The court referenced the *Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1935*, which provided other punishments such as compulsory retirement, and found that these should have been considered.

3. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, as established in *Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran* and *Management of State Bank of India vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh*. The court should not reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority. However, it can interfere if the punishment is found to be grossly disproportionate to the charges proven. The court found that the learned Single Judge did not err in not interfering with the merits of the charges but did err in not considering the proportionality of the punishment.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the findings of the second enquiry officer but quashed the order of dismissal, directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment within three months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---