Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
1. By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for quashing the penalty order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4 and the appellate order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 and to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case of the applicant, in brief, are that while working in the Tatra Group of 508, Army Base Workshop, Cheoki, the applicant made a complaint against Commandant and M.D. 508, Army Base Workshop, Allahabad vide his application 03.12.2014 alleging that some army officers and army personnel had beaten him by using criminal force. Thereafter, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.12.2014 and he was served with a charge sheet dated 16.03.2015. On 12.05.2015, the applicant submitted his reply to the charge sheet denying the charges leveled therein and requested for holding an inquiry in accordance with law. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.05.2015, Col. (Dr.) Anand Kumar Pandey and Lt. Col. S.J. Singh were appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively. Before commencement of inquiry proceedings, the applicant vide his application dated 02.06.2015 requested the Inquiry Officer to engage one Shri Braj Mohan, a retired Assistant from 508, Army Base Workshop, Allahabad as Defence Assistant under Sub Rule (8) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 but the Inquiry Officer made a remark on his application that “the Defence Assistant as suggested will be put up to the Disciplinary Authority whereas as per CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, Shri Braj Mohan is already holding 7 cases at 508 Army Base Workshop” as Defenct Assistant. The applicant contended that such remark of the Inquiry Officer was wholly illegal being against the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 as Shri Braj Mohan was Defence Assistant only in two cases other than the case of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application dated 03.06.2015 to the Disciplinary Authority for change of Inquiry Officer on the ground of bias, but no order was passed on his application and Col. (Dr.) A.K. Pandey continued to hold the inquiry by allowing Braj Mohan as Defence Assistant.
3. The applicant contended that during the inquiry proceedings, inspite of the objection raised by the Defence Assistant, the Inquiry Officer allowed the unlisted state witnesses prior to giving the statement of the listed witnesses arbitrarily and illegally. It is also contended that the six documents were demanded by the Defence Assistant vide application dated 05.06.2015 but out of six, only two documents were supplied and four were denied by the Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 05.06.2015 hence, the applicant was denied of preparing his defence and this act was violation of his right to natural justice.
4. After examination of witnesses and after submission of written brief from both sides, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 29.09.2015 and a copy of same was forwarded to the applicant vide letter dated 03.10.2015 alongwith consolidated photocopies of comments on inquiry report. The applicant submitted his reply to the inquiry report on 21.10.2015. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice proposing major penalty of dismissal from service to the applicant vide order dated 06.01.2016. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 21.01.2016. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.03.2016 passed the order dismissing the applicant from service. Being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 16.04.2016 to the Appellate Authority, which has been rejected by the Appellate Authority during pendency of this OA vide order dated 19.12.2017.
5. The applicant contended that the action of the Inquiry Officer is arbitrary and illegal as without considering the written brief submitted by the Defence Assistant, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the report. It is contended that the documents mentioned in para 4(a)(iii) of the inquiry report are not listed documents in Annexure III of memo of charge dated 16.03.2015 and as such the Disciplinary Authority should not have taken cognizance of those documents. Further, in para 4(a)(iv) of the inquiry report, a copy of list of workers has been mentioned by the Inquiry Officer whereas there is no such document mentioned in Annexure-III of Memo of charge and as such it is also not a case of Disciplinary Authority. In para 4(a) (v) of inquiry report, a FIR dated 02.12.2014 for theft of camera has been mentioned by the Inquiry Officer whereas this document is also not listed in Annexure-III of Memo of charges and also there is no such charge against the applicant. Further, in para 4(a)(vi) of inquiry report, written statement of Major Santosh Kumar, Major Sandeep Deveiah, KS, Dr. S.B. Singh and Col Admn Col. Sumit Sur has been mentioned whereas these statements are not listed documents in Annexure-III of Memo of charges. Further, in para 4(b) of inquiry report, a reference of CD containing video of slogan shouting dated 01.12.2014 has been mentioned whereas this CD is also not listed in Annexure III of Memo of charges and it has neither been produced before the inquiry nor it has been seen in the video, therefore, such document cannot be referred in the inquiry report.
6. The applicant further contended that the brief submitted by the Presenting Officer and the Defence Assistant were not made part of the inquiry proceeding and also the arguments made by the Defence Assistant in his written brief dated 22.09.2015 has not been considered by the Inquiry Officer while submitting the inquiry report. In para 6(iii) of inquiry report, it has been stated that Col. Sumit Sur is not a listed witness whereas he has been produced before the inquiry officer violating Sub rule 15 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The applicant also contended that as per the evidence adduced, none of the charges were proved against him. The applicant also contended that without considering the reply dated 21.10.2015 and 21.01.2016 submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order dated 18.03.2016 in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The applicant further submitted that the Appellate Authority while rejecting his appeal has also not considered the legal points raised in his appeal and passed the order dated 19.12.2017 in an arbitrary and illegal manner without observing the provisions of rules. Hence, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside and the OA should be allowed.
7. Upon notice, the respondents have filed counter in which the basic facts of the case are not denied. However, the respondents contended that the applicant, who was appointed as labourer on compassionate grounds on 9.3.2009 , was served with Memorandum of Charge vide this office letter No. 21202/6958-VKM/Est-Ind dated 16.3.215 and an addendum of Memorandum dated 20.3.2015 taking into cognizance of gross indiscipline, insubordination using insolent/un parliamentary language and violent /riotous behavior against an Army Officer and other two workers and a report on the untoward incident was initiated by the GM (Production) vide his letter dated 03.12.2014. The respondents stated that a complaint dated 03.12.2014 was made by the applicant and a representation was initiated by Shri Swayambar Lal, General Secretary, defence EME Employees Union vide letter dated 4.12.2014 and the Disciplinary Authority after carefully examining the report dated 03.12.2014 initiated by GM (Production) and taking into account, the contents of the complaint dated 03.12.2014 of the applicant and the representation dated 4.12.2014 from the defence EME Employees Union, and after ascertaining the prima facie facts of the incident disposed off the complaint duly clarifying the fact vide reasoned and speaking order dated 16.12.2014. The inquiry thus concluded that the statement made by the applicant that some of the Army Officer and Army personnel beat the applicant using criminal force is not only misleading but a false submission. Thereafter, keeping in view of the gravity of offence and to restore industrial peace at the place of work, the applicant alongwith two other employees viz. Shri V.S Shukla and Shri D.M. Chaturvedi involved in the case, were suspended w.e.f. 22.12.2014 by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 vide order No. 21206/6958 - VKM/Est-Ind dated 20.12.201 and the memorandum of charge bearing 21206/6958 - VKM/Est- Ind dated 16.03.2015 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and subsequently an addendum dated 20.3.2015 were issued to the applicant providing him opportunity to represent his innocence for the offences committed by him and the same was sent at his permanent address through registered post. But the said notices were returned undelivered stating that "addressee is staying at Allahabad."
8. As the Applicant was not traceable at his last and only known address, the office of the SSP Allahabad was approached to know the whereabouts of the Government employee (Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra) vide letter No. 24501/SSP /Adm Coord dated 27.3.2015. In response, the Office of the SSP, Allahabad vide their letter dated 31.3.2015 (Annexure No. 1A to this CA) informed that an F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant with Police Station Naini and pursuant to which the applicant was sent to Jail on 13.02.2015 and a charge sheet No. 173/15 dated 25.03.2015 was filed against him in the District Court. The applicant never tried to notify his arrest at his own to his office. However, he intimated the office only after being released on bail on 29.04.2015 vide his letter dated 11.05.2015 about his arrest.
9. Thereafter, the Memo of Charge and its addendum were sent to him again vide letter No. 21206/6958- VKM/Est-Ind dated 6.05.2015 which was acknowledged by the applicant and vide letter dated 12.05.2015 he denied all the charges of the memo and asked for holding an enquiry, and he wanted to be heard in person. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority ordered an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 by appointing Col. (Dr.) A.K. Pandey as the Inquiry Officer (IO) vide order No. 21206/6958- VKM/IO/Est-Ind dated 15.5.2015 and Lt. Col SJ Singh as presenting Officer (PO) vide Order No. 21206/6958- VKM/IO/Est-Ind dated 15.5.2015.
10. The respondents further submitted that due to lack of understanding prior to commencement of the inquiry, the IO vide his letter No. 44461/AKP/Per/PO dated 16.05.2015 provided an opportunity to the delinquent official that he may seek assistance of Defence Assistant if he so desires in compliance with the provisions of Sub Rule (8) of Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 and the applicant submitted the particulars of Shri Braj Mohan, a retired Govt. servant as his Defence Assistant alongwith his willingness certificate dated 01.06.2015 vide his letter dated 02.6.2015. It is submitted that the remarks put in by the IO on the letter dated 02.06.2015 was merely for information of the Disciplinary Authority only and never disallowed the service of Shri Braj Mohan (Retd) as Defence Assistant of the applicant. However, before the matter could be decided by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant and his Defence Assistant submitted another application dated 03.06.2015 stating that they have no objection to continue the proceeding under the same IO. Thus the contention of the applicant that no order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority for change of Inquiry Officer is incorrect.
11. The respondents contended that as per Annexure IV of the Memo of Charge, the names of Major Santosh Kumar and Major Sandeep Devaiah KS are listed as witnesses. Accordingly, their statements, examination/ cross examination by the Defence Assistant were recorded. As per the provisions of Sub Rule (15) of Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 the Inquiry Officer at his discretion is empowered to allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given in the charge sheet to the Government Servant. Thus, in compliance thereof to maintain transparency in the inquiry, Col. Sumit Sur being an important functionary holding the assignment of Col Administration of 508 Army Base Workshop was called for evidence and deposition before the inquiry and during the inquiry the evidence produced by Col Sumit Sur has been examined in presence of Defence Assistant and the applicant, and the cross examination of said officers are on record. Similarly, Dr S.B. Singh who was also holding an important post as GM (Production) of 508 Army Base Workshop and had initiated the report of untoward incident of 01.12.2014 and 02.12.2014 vide his letter dated 01.12.2014 and dated 03.12.2024 was cross examined by the Defence Assistant. And in compliance with the principles of natural justice and to substantiate the facts of the report, Dr. S.B. Singh was called for evidence by the Presenting Officer as also equal opportunity was provided to the Defence Assistant in presence of the applicant for his cross examination during the inquiry proceedings. Thus, the statement made by the applicant that Inquiry Officer took his interest by conducting such illegal proceedings, does not bear any valid ground.
12. The respondents further contended that the Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry proceedings and submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 29.09 2015. Thereafter, as per the provisions of Rule 15(2) of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965, the complete inquiry report was sent to the applicant vide Disciplinary Authority letter No. 21206/6958-VKM/Est dated 03.10.2015 providing another opportunity to the applicant to submit representation, if he so desired and in response thereto, the applicant vide his letter dated 21.10.2015 had, raised certain points on the inquiry report. Accordingly, the points raised by the applicant were examined in detail in the light of the inquiry report and the written briefs submitted by the Defence Assistant and the Presenting Officer , the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 dismissing the applicant from service. Thus, contention of the applicant that the Disciplinary Authority without considering the reply dated 21.10.2015 and 21.01.2016 passed the dismissal order from service is incorrect and devoid of any merit.
13. The respondents also contended that against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 16.04.2016 and the Appellate Authority after having thorough examination of the entire case record as well as the points raised by the applicant in his appeal, vide order dated 19.12.2016 rejected the same and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It is also stated that during the inquiry proceedings, the applicant was afforded full opportunity and both the authorities have applied their mind and after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the records and explanation submitted by the applicant, have passed the orders, which cannot be said to be illegal or devoid of merit in any manner. Hence, they prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
14. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit in which he reiterates his stand as in the OA. The respondents have also filed certain documents in support of their contentions.
15. The case came up for final hearing on 26.02.2024. Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents were present and both were heard. We have carefully gone through the entire record, and considered the rival contentions.
16. From the record, it is evident that the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 16.03.2015. Simple examination of the charge sheet shows that Annexure-I contains article of charges framed against the applicant, Annexure-II contains statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges, Annexure-III contains list of documents by which article of charges framed against the applicant are proposed to be sustained and Annexure-IV contains list of witnesses and the same is followed by addendum dated 20.03.2015 and the applicant submitted his reply denying the charges. Thereafter, inquiry proceeding has been initiated as per the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. One of the major contention of the applicant is that the Inquiry Officer was biased and for the same, he stated that on the request made by him to appoint Shri Braj Mohan, a retired employee, to be his Defence Assistant, the Inquiry Officer has written that the proposed Defence Assistant has seven such cases as Defence Assistant whereas, in fact, he was engaged as Defence Assistant in only two cases. From the record, it is evident that those information and notings were not substantial or relevant. In this regard, a letter dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure CA-6 of counter affidavit), which is signed by both the applicant as well as Shri Braj Mohan, the Defence Assistant having subject „application against the IO on the ground of bias and to change the IO‟, is relevant. The contents of the aforesaid letter reads as under: -
“Ref : Letter dt. 03. June 2015 on the subject, since I have been nominated as DA for Shri V.K. Mishra, I have no objection about Col. A.K. Pandey as IO and continue the proceeding.”
From the contents of the aforesaid letter it is clear that the applicant and his Defence Assistant had admitted the appointment of Col. A.K. Pandey as Inquiry Officer, so again raising the same contention before us that the Inquiry Officer was biased and that on his application, the Disciplinary Authority did not act is unfair and self contradictory as the same Defence Assistant continued in the inquiry proceeding and the applicant and his representative had accepted the I.O on record.
17. Further, from the inquiry report, it is also evident that a very detailed inquiry has been conducted and evidences of defence witnesses and the documents listed are produced and examined. But in addition, some other defence witnesses and documents and evidences were also produced which, the applicant contends, vitiates the inquiry and hence, this court should set aside the inquiry report and the punishment order. But, as shown by the respondents, under sub rule 15 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, evidence of additional witnesses etc. can be permitted by the Inquiry Officer. In para 28 of the rejoinder, the applicant agrees that such provision exists, but his only contention is the timing of such new evidences, as in his opinion, it should be after the close of evidences listed in Annexure – II and III. It is also evident from record that ample opportunity to cross examine all witnesses as well as additional witnesses were provided to the applicant and their statements were recorded in the presence of Defence Assistant and the charged official and they were given ample opportunity to cross examine them. Hence, this contention of the applicant also does not get substantiated from the record and rules. The respondents explained that certain additional evidences like CD etc. containing video of slogan shouting by the applicant on 01.12.2014 has been produced by one of the witness Major Santosh Kumar, and that availability of CD is revealed during the inquiry and marked as exhibit-1 and in anticipation, they could not have taken CD as part of Annexure-III of the memo of charge. And the charged official was given ample opportunity to examine the CD and cross examine the said witness which fulfills the requirement for the principles of natural justice.
18. Further, it is alleged that certain documents were asked but not made available to the applicant. We find no substance in this contention of the applicant because from the inquiry report, it is evident that all the major documents relied upon were made available to the applicant and it is not clear which document and the significance of those documents, which the applicant was trying to be made available to him and were not provided. The applicant fails to substantiate which document relied and having significance was not made available to him.
19. Furthermore, the applicant contended that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have not properly appreciated the statement of defence witnesses and his statement at page 120 and 121 of the inquiry report are taken differently than what he said and intended. But, from examination of over all his case file and statement of various witnesses, in isolation, no statement is taken to conclude the inquiry or to substantiate a charge and all the statements and evidences are collectively taken. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the same and hence, it does not come out clearly what the applicant intends by saying that his defence witness statements were wrongly understood. If there are multiple witnesses of the Disciplinary Authority, who are telling something else and whose statements are credible and other documentary and collateral evidences substantiate the same, it cannot be controverted by mere saying that one defence witness’s statement has not been taken on its face value appreciated properly. Statements of all the witness and their statements are taken into account to come to a logical conclusion that the charges are proved. Hence this argument of the applicant has also no substance.
20. The applicant further wants to say that certain new witnesses have brought in written statement which he has doubt about, but it is not clear that what actually happened there. However, he and his Defence Assistant was given ample opportunity to cross examine the said witnesses also, as it is evident from record. The applicant further says that his replies and the written brief of his Defence Assistant have not been considered by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. But if we examine the inquiry report and the orders of Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, all three have examined them and after examining the applicant’s defence brief and other statements and written brief etc., the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have come to their respective conclusions on the article of charges and all legal points raised by the applicant and his Defence Assistant have been considered at appropriate places.
21. The applicant further says that the charge sheet is not in proper format, but from very perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that it is having all the four essential ingredients i.e. article of charge, statement of imputation of charge, documents relied on and the witness relied on. Thus, there is no defect as such in the charge sheet. At the stage of this OA, the applicant has brought a new thing that the statement of charged official was not done after the inquiry, but from the record, it is evident that he was given written opportunity to do so and he was present and got cross examined all the witnesses; and he had ample opportunity of being heard and he had not taken this plea at the stage of imposition of penalty when the Disciplinary Authority further gave him opportunity. Furthermore, the applicant had the same opportunity at the time of appeal, therefore, the new plea and argument cannot be convincing and accepted at this stage.
22. The applicant further contended that the authority not competent to punish him has imposed penalty on him, but he has not substantiated his claim with adducing any evidence. Hence, this contention is also not convincing.
23. Thus, looking from any angle, we do not find that the applicant has made any case for himself to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. A large number of case laws have been cited, but this Tribunal is not sitting in appeal over the orders of Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority as per the various judicial pronouncements of Hon‟ble Apex Court.
24. It is settled principle of law that in OAs challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re-appreciation of evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held that “The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. 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. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice”.
25. In a large number of cases including the case of Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha ; (1994) 2 SCC 615, State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723,Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279=1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079, State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Another (2011 STPL (web) 904) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raghubir Singh and another, CWP No. 1154/2014 decided on 06.05.2014 by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the underline theme is that the High Court/tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. They have to see whether there is violation of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity committed by the inquiry officer, Disciplinary authority and due procedure was adopted strictly in accordance with the service rule.
26. Recently, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus P.Gunasekaran 2015 (2) S.C.C. Page 610) in paras 12, 13 & 20 has held as follows:-
“12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. 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 the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations 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;
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.
Xx xx xx
19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values.”
27. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 again has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings the Court are not competent and cannot appreciate the evidence . In this regard, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
“The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges against the appellant to have been proved. After consultation with the UPSC, the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.10.1986.The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, upheld all the charges as having been proved but converted the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The delinquent filed an appeal challenging the finding on merits, and the Union filed an appeal canvassing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by it. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India and dismissing that of the delinquent.
Per Ramaswamy and Jeevan Reddy, JJ
”Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.”
28. In another case the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Upendra Singh reported in 1994(3)SCC 357 has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary enquiry is very limited. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
“In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be.”
29. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has also observed in regard to scope of judicial review as well as in regard to the quantum of punishment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Md. Ayub Naaz reported in 2006 (1) SCC 589 as under:-
“10. This Court in Om Kumar and Others vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 while considering the quantum of punishment / proportionality has observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. In the instant case, the authorities have not omitted any relevant materials nor any irrelevant fact taken into account nor any illegality committed by the authority nor the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate. The punishment was awarded in the instant case, after considering all the relevant materials and, therefore, in our view, the interference by the High Court on reduction of punishment of removal is not called for.”
30. In the instant case, from the record, it is evident that there is substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed for disciplinary proceedings as well as inquiry and ample opportunity of being heard has been provided to the applicant, thus it cannot be said that there is violation of principle of natural justice and any procedural violation as such which will vitiate the inquiry. And there is no iota of evidence to prove allegation of bias, malice or perversity. It will be relevant to observe that the applicant was given appointment on compassionate grounds which itself was an exception to the constitutional scheme of public employment and it was incumbent upon him to have absolute integrity and devotion to duty working in a defence unit. But by his conduct the applicant does not show himself to be abiding by the standards of conduct and rules as is expected from a civilian working in a defence production establishment. Any leniency in such cases will be prejudicial to the discipline and productivity in such unit. Hence, even quantum of punishment does not appear to be disproportionate as claimed by the applicant.
31. In view of the foregoing discussions and the catena of judgments of Hon‟ble Apex Court, we find no illegality or any infirmity or any violation of principle of natural justice as well as the relevant provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 in the disciplinary inquiry and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, therefore, we pass following order: -
The OA is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
32. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.
33. No order as to costs.
