Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rajiv Mathur vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 2 December, 2022
1
OA No. 328/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 328/2017
Order Reserved on: 21.11.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 02.12.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Rajiv Mathur son of late Shri R.B.L. Mathur, aged
about 60 years, resident of 1/135, SFS Mansarover,
Jaipur earlier working as Technical Officer, NBPGR,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi
(Group-A).
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research through
its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai
Marg, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi-110001.
2. President, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, Krishi Bhawan, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai
Marg, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi-110001.
.... Respondents
Dr. Saugath Roy, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the order dated 2 OA No. 328/2017 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) as well as the charge- sheet dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure A/2) and prayed that the same be quashed and set aside and he may be given all consequential benefits.
2(a). The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, is that he was served with a memorandum dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure A/2) under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charges leveled against the applicant in the said Memorandum was that while working as Purchase Officer in NBPGR, he caused a loss of Rs. 94,082/- to the Council by awarding the work of up-gradation of existing security system in the National Gene Bank to L-2 Firm viz. M/s Advance Secure that has quoted higher price by ignoring the price of L-1 i.e. M/s Sonal Enterprises. Accordingly, he violated provisions of GFR 160. In the statement of imputation enclosed with the Memorandum, it was alleged that applicant did not object to award of contract to L-2 firm.
2(b). Applicant further states that as per GFR-160, the contract should ordinarily be awarded to the lowest evaluated bidder whose bid has been found responsive and who is eligible and qualified to perform the 3 OA No. 328/2017 contract satisfactorily as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the corresponding bidding document. The matter was referred to Vigilance and Vigilance has opined that the charge-sheet should be served over the persons who have given their approval to award the work to L-2 and, thus, he was served with the charge-sheet. On 19.11.2013, he submitted a representation demanding listed documents from the respondents. The Vigilance provided few of the documents to the applicant. After going through the same, the applicant denied the charges vide communication dated 25.03.2014 but the respondents without considering the representation submitted by the applicant, appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide order dated 23.05.2014. No reason was assigned by the Disciplinary Authority to reject the representation of the applicant. 2(c). Applicant states that the Inquiry Officer started preliminary hearing to which the applicant demanded necessary documents. These documents were denied by the respondents. During the enquiry, out of 5 prosecution witnesses, only 4 were produced and the witnesses nowhere alleged that the applicant caused financial loss to the Institution. In the enquiry proceedings, none of the witnesses has stated that the 4 OA No. 328/2017 applicant has committed any misconduct. In fact, the applicant states that he was neither Member of TBEC nor PAMC and that he is not responsible for flouting any provisions. After completion of enquiry, Inquiry Officer served its report, which was communicated to the applicant for his comments. In the entire enquiry report, it is nowhere discussed that the applicant was having the authority to serve the purchase order to a firm not recommended by the committee. 2(d). The applicant further states that he belongs to Technical Cadre and in absence of Purchase Officer, he was assigned the job of the same. The Inquiry Officer, thereafter, submitted his report to Disciplinary Authority on 27.08.2015, which was communicated to the applicant vide memorandum dated 11.05.2016. Under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, there is no provision of passing any punishment order over an employee who has attained the age of superannuation. An employee, who has attained the age of superannuation, can be punished under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules only, to which the President of India is the competent authority to pass the orders of punishment. The applicant submitted his representation to the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, without considering the defence of 5 OA No. 328/2017 the applicant, the respondents have passed the order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) imposing a penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of one year in addition to the recovery of loss of Rs. 13440/- from the applicant. The applicant states that the penalty order served upon him is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) as well as charge-sheet dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure A/2), the applicant has filed the present Original Application for redressal of his grievances.
3(a). After issue of notices, the respondents have filed their reply stating that due process was followed while conducting enquiry at all stages in accordance with relevant rules and in conformity with the principle of natural justice. The Courts/Tribunals do not sit as court of appeal against the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters. The respondents further state that as per written statement of Shri Chamola, who had admitted that he was in favour of placing order with L- 1 firm i.e. M/s Sonal Enterprises, but since majority members of PAMC were of the other view and, thus, had to go with the majority and he had become part of the decision for placing the order with L-2 firm. As 6 OA No. 328/2017 per tender query dated 12/13.04.2010, there were 9 terms and conditions, which were supposed to be adhered to and in these terms and conditions, nowhere it was stipulated that the representative of the firm should visit the site before quoting the prices. 3(b). The respondents further state that Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) forwarded a complaint dated 02.11.2010 made by M/s Sonal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in connection with supply of security equipment. In the complaint, complainant had alleged that the contract of up-gradation of security system at Gene Bank, NBPGR was awarded to L-2 firm i.e. M/s Advance Secure instead of L-1 i.e. M/s Sonal Enterprises and, thus, the matter was examined by the Council. On examination, it was observed that prima facie irregularity has been committed and that the applicant being the Purchase Officer of the Institute along with other official is involved in the lapses. Being the Purchase Officer, it was his responsibility to ensure that the procurement is being made as per the provisions of GFR and Manual on Policies and Procedures of Purchase of Goods. Any inconformity with mandatory provisions should have been informed by him to PAMC and competent authority.
7OA No. 328/2017 3(c). Respondents state that the applicant being Purchase Officer neither informed about the provisions of GFR and Manual of Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Goods to PAMC (while putting up the file for PAMC or on receiving it back with PAMC recommendations) nor he informed about the same to competent authority (while putting up the recommendations of PAMC for its approval). Therefore, after considering all these, the Disciplinary Authority recommended for initiation of departmental action against the applicant. Thereafter, the file was sent to CVC for its advice. The CVC in agreement with the Disciplinary Authority advised for initiation of departmental action against the applicant. It is further stated by the respondents that relevant documents were provided to the applicant. The Inquiry Officer has also held the charges as proved against the applicant. It is also stated by the respondents that the applicant has failed to find out any flow in the procedure adopted during the enquiry. 3(d). It is further stated by the respondents that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were placed before the President of ICAR as per Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulates that only President has the right to impose a penalty of cut in pension, against 8 OA No. 328/2017 the charged officer on the basis of findings of the Inquiry Officer and after considering the submission of the applicant, penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of one year was imposed upon him vide order dated 22.02.2017. It is also stated by the respondents that since irregularities were committed by Administrative Officer as well as by the Finance Officer, therefore, both were also charged sheeted and were penalized as per the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, looking to the financial loss caused by the applicant, said penalty was imposed upon the applicant. Therefore, the respondents state that their action is just and proper and as per the settled preposition of law. Thus, the respondents prayed that the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
4. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record.
6. The applicant has reiterated the submissions made earlier. He further stated that since he belongs to Technical Cadre and in good faith has acted as a Purchase Officer. The charge-sheet for following the 9 OA No. 328/2017 terms and conditions of the tender document is unsustainable as the said charge-sheet alleges that the applicant should have informed the purchase committee about GFR-160 and particular part of the manual issued by Department of Expenditure. In the entire charge-sheet, there is no allegation of any mala-fide act or misconduct upon the applicant. The Inquiry Officer has gone beyond the charge sheet to prove the charges against the applicant. The order of punishment is liable to be quashed and set aside for the reason that the same has been passed by an incompetent authority. There is no provision under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to impose penalty over an employee who has attained the age of superannuation. It is only Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which empowers the Hon'ble President of India to impose the penalty after the age of superannuation. Also during the course of enquiry, applicant had demanded certain documents but those documents were denied to him on the ground of relevancy but since the said documents were relied in the charge-sheet and were required for defence to be submitted by him, the respondents have committed illegality and, thus, the orders passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10 OA No. 328/2017
7. The respondents have also reiterated their submissions as made earlier. They have further stated that the penalty order imposed upon the applicant is a reasoned and speaking order. It is the applicant who had failed to comply with the provisions of GFR 160 and Manual on Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Goods issued by the Department of Expenditure and was required to inform the same to the competent authority. The plea of alibi of the applicant that he belongs to Technical Cadre does not absolve him from his responsibility as he was assigned the duty of Purchase Officer of the Institute. It was expected from the applicant to perform his duty in a fair and transparent manner as per rules / instructions and by not following the procedures prescribed in the GFR and Manual of Purchase Procedure of Purchase of Goods, the applicant has caused loss to the exchequer. As per Bye-laws of the ICAR and Rules provided therein, the President, ICAR, who is the Hon'ble Agriculture Minister, has passed the penalty order against the applicant under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as it is very clear from Rule 30 of By-laws of ICAR, which provides that Bye-laws, Regulations or Orders made or issued by the Society, the service and financial Rules framed by the 11 OA No. 328/2017 Government of India and such other Rules and Orders issued by the Government of India from time to time, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Society in regard to matters concerning their service conditions. Thus, respondents state that the orders passed by them are just and proper and need no interference by this Tribunal as the same are within their powers to do so. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 113.
8. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the pleadings and material available on record, it is clear that the applicant was issued with a charge-sheet dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure A/2) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charge leveled against the applicant was that while working as Purchase Officer (T-7/8) at NBPGR, the applicant caused a loss of Rs. 94082/- to the Council by awarding the work of up-gradation of existing Security Systems in the National Gene Bank, NBPGR to L-2 firm viz M/s Advance Secure which has quoted the price on a higher side. By ignoring L-1 i.e. M/s Sonal Enterprise, he violated the provisions of GFR 160. The 12 OA No. 328/2017 applicant had, thereafter, represented to the respondents seeking documents by which Article of Charges were proposed to be sustained and relied upon by the respondents. After the relevant documents supplied to the applicant, he filed reply to the said charge-sheet/memorandum wherein he had denied the charges leveled against him and asked the respondents to drop the same on the plea that the same are wrong and misleading. Thereafter the respondents vide their letter dated 23.05.2014, appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the applicant. It is seen that thereafter preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and the applicant was provided the preliminary enquiry report and statement of prosecution witnesses. It is also seen that again applicant demanded certain documents and we find that the relevant documents as required were provided to the applicant. We also find that thereafter the enquiry was proceeded with. The enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer following the Rules / Procedures. We do not find violation of any principles of natural justice during the course of enquiry.
9. It is seen that enquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority on 13 OA No. 328/2017 27.08.2015 and the same was communicated to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 11.05.2016. The applicant had submitted a representation to the said enquiry report. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) a penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of one year was imposed upon the applicant in addition to the recovery of loss of Rs. 13440/- from him. The relevant part of penalty order dated 22.02.2017, reads as under: -
"NOW THEREFORE, having regard to the nature of the charge framed against the CO, advice of the CVC, findings of the Inquiry Officer, submissions of the Charged Officer and other relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the President, ICAR being the Disciplinary Authority in the case is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by imposing a penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of one year on Shri Rajiv Mathur, Technical officer (Now Retired), NBPGR, New Delhi. Further the Disciplinary Authority has also decided to recover the loss of Rs. 94,082/- equally from all the delinquents of which share of Shri Rajiv Mathur comes to Rs. 13440/-.
ACCORDINGLY, the penalty of "10% cut in pension for a period of one year" is imposed on Shri Rajiv Mathur, Technical Officer (Now Retired0, NBPGR, New Delhi in addition to the recovery of loss of Rs. 13440/- from him."
10. From the entire enquiry proceedings, we do not find any flaw on the part of the respondents and find that the respondents have conducted the enquiry in a fair and transparent manner. We also find that the documents sought for by the applicant were supplied 14 OA No. 328/2017 to him and the documents which according to the applicant were not provided by the respondents cannot be agreed as it is very clear that all the relevant documents were provided to the applicant. The applicant was performing his duties as a Purchasing Officer and he was duty bound to ensure that the procurement is being made as per provisions of GFR as well as the provisions of Manual of Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Goods, which was circulated by the ICAR vide Circular No. 9(7) 2007- Cdn (A&A) dated 15.11.2007. It was also his duty to inform the PAMC and competent authority if there was any violation of mandatory provisions.
11. We find that the applicant had neither informed about the provisions of GFR and Manual of Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Goods to PAMC (while putting up the file for PAMC or on receiving it back with PAMC recommendations) nor he informed about the same to competent authority (while putting up the recommendations of PAMC for its approval). Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority after considering all these materials had recommended for initiation of departmental action against the applicant. We find that as per rules, the file was sent to CVC for its advice. The CVC in agreement with the Disciplinary 15 OA No. 328/2017 Authority had advised for initiation of departmental action against the applicant.
12. We also find that besides complaining about the non-receipt of some documents, applicant has not been able to state anything about violation of any procedure or norms during the enquiry proceedings. It is seen that the copies of relevant note portion of purchase file was provided with the charge sheet to the applicant. The applicant demanded copies of few more documents vide representation dated 19.11.2013, which were provided to him. The list of documents provided to the applicant, as stated in reply to OA, is as under: -
"(i) Tender Document for up-gradation of existing security systems at NBPGR.
(ii) The comparative statement prepared in respect of five bids.
(iii) Bill on which payment has been made to M/s Advance Secure.
(iv) The final specifications and terms and conditions given for up-gradation of security system by the committee of which Dr. R.K. Tyagi was the Chairman.
(v) The document which has been used to indicate in Annexure II of Memorandum dated 8.11.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that M/s Sonal Enterprise had executed the work of security system at the National Gene Bank.16 OA No. 328/2017
(vi) Proof that representative of M/s Sonal Enterprise visited the site on 29.6.2010."
13. Coming to the grounds raised by the applicant that penalty imposed upon him vide order dated 22.02.2017 is a non-speaking order, we cannot agree with the same as we find that the said order dated 22.02.2017 is a well reasoned and speaking order.
14. With regard to the submission of the applicant that he was a Technical Officer and not a Purchase Officer and so as per the manual of Department of Expenditure, nowhere empowers a Purchase Officer to supersede the condition of tender document, cannot be agreed as it is very clear that he being a Purchase Officer, it was his responsibility to ensure that the procurement is being made as per the provisions of GFR and Manual on Policies and Procedures of Purchase of Goods. We also cannot agree with the grounds raised by the applicant that there was no misconduct committed by the applicant as the purpose of GFR 160 is to prefer to the lowest bid if he fulfills all other conditions and, therefore, since M/s Sonal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had not sent representative to visit the site prior to submitting tender cannot be accepted as nowhere in the terms and conditions of the tender, such conditions were mentioned. It is 17 OA No. 328/2017 very clear that terms and conditions of the tender query dated 12/13.04.2010 do not stipulate that the representative of the firm should visit the site before quoting the price. Thus, we fail to understand that how the applicant was not responsible for the said loss caused by him. We also find that due to such act of the applicant and other delinquents, the Institute has suffered with a loss of Rs. 94,082/- of which share of applicant comes to Rs. 13440/-.
15. Also the grounds raised by the applicant that the order of punishment dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) is not passed by a competent authority, cannot be agreed as it is very clear from the Bye-laws of the ICAR and its Rules i.e. Rule 2 (d) provides that "The President" means the President of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. It is also very clear from Rule 29 of ICAR that these Bye-laws shall apply to permanent and temporary employees of the Society but shall not apply to any person employed on casual or daily wage basis. Rule 30(a) of the ICAR provides that 'Except in regard to matters for which specific provisions has been made in the Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations or Orders made or issued by the Society, the service and financial Rules framed by the Government of India and such other Rules and Orders 18 OA No. 328/2017 issued by the Government of India from time to time, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Society in regard to matters concerning their service conditions. Thus, it is very clear that the penalty order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by the President, ICAR cannot be said to be order passed by an incompetent authority.
16. We have also gone through the Office Memorandum No. 11012/11/2016-Estt. A-III [Part] dated 10th February, 2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, relevant part of which reads as under: -
"The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Agricultural Research & Education U.O. No. 6 (11)/2013-Vig.II dated 2.12.2016 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the President is the Authority under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of all retired Government servant including Section Officer of CSS. Having regard to Transaction of Business Rules framed under Article 77 of the Constitution, in case where the President is the Disciplinary Authority, the power of the President of India are exercised by the Minister-in-Charge of the concerned Ministry/Department."
Therefore, it is clear that the President is the Authority under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of all retired Government servant and in case where the President is the Disciplinary Authority, 19 OA No. 328/2017 the power of the President of India are exercised by the Minister-in-Charge of the concerned Ministry / Department.
17. Further, we have gone through the Order No. 6- 11/2013-Vig.-II (Pt.) dated 24th January, 2018 issued by ICAR, New Delhi wherein it has been mentioned that the position has been reconsidered in the light of the advice of CVC and DoP&T and it has been decided by the competent authority that Disciplinary Authority in respect of the retired officials of the ICAR and its constituent units will be the Hon'ble Union Minister of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
18. We have also gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Sharma (supra), relied upon by the respondents and are in agreement with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the expression "mutatis mutandis" itself implies applicability of any provision with necessary changes in points of detail. The rules which are adopted, make the principles embodies in the rules applicable and not the details pertaining to particular authority or things of that nature.
19. Thus, we are of the view that as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 20 OA No. 328/2017 the case of Prahlad Sharma (supra) as well as the Bye-laws of ICAR and its Rules and also aforesaid Office Memorandum/Orders, it is very clear that the President, ICAR can function as the President under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. We have also observed that Hon'ble the Minister of Agriculture is the President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Therefore, we are of the view that the penalty order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) as has been passed as per opinion of the President, ICAR being the Disciplinary Authority, is just and proper and also held that the same is passed by the competent authority.
20. We have also gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. N. Gangaraj, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423, the relevant paras 8, 9, 10, 15 & 16 of the same read as under: -
"8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision- making process. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority.
9. In State of A.P. & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether 21 OA No. 328/2017 the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court held as under: (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7) "7. ...The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence...."
10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, again, a three- Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of 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 eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under: (SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13) "12. 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 22 OA No. 328/2017 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.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364,], this Court held at 23 OA No. 328/2017 p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
xxxxxx
15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the courts are the Appellate Authority. We may notice that the said judgment has not noticed larger bench judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao and B.C. Chaturvedi as mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court suffer from patent illegality and thus cannot be sustained in law.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside and the order of punishment imposed is restored."
21. We do not agree with the grounds raised by the applicant that the respondents have violated the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 while conducting the enquiry as it is very clear that the respondents have duly followed all procedures at every stage of the enquiry in conformity with the Rules and principles of natural justice. We have also observed that in the instant case, the enquiry has been held by an authority competent to do so, and according to the 24 OA No. 328/2017 procedure prescribed in that behalf, and also the rules of natural justice are not violated.
22. In view of the observations made herein-above, it is very clear that the impugned penalty order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) as well as charge- sheet/Memorandum dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure A/2) are just and proper. Thus, the Original Application being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed.
23. Accordingly, present Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/