Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority Delhi on 20 December, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.2713/2014
Order Reserved on: 15.12.2016
Order pronounced on:20.12.2016
Hon'ble Mr. V.Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A)
Vijay Kumar, Aged 58 years
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chand
Working as Executive Engineer (Civil)
In Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
R/o D-280, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi-17. . Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
(1) GNCT of Delhi through
Through the Chief Secretary
New Secretariat
New Delhi.
(2) The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. . Respondents
(Advocate: Mrs. Sriparna Chatterjee)
ORDER
By Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A): -
This OA, filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks quashing of penalty order dated 08.02.2012 passed against the applicant, the Appellate Authority's Order dated 13.01.2014, as well 2 OA No.2713 /2014 as charge sheet dated 24.03.2009 and the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 26.04.2010 as being illegal, arbitrary,against the rules and against the principles of natural justice.
2. The facts in brief are;
That the disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 25 of the DDA Conduct Disciplinary & Appeal Regulation 1999 were initiated against the applicant vide memorandum dated 24.03.2009 for the lapses/irregularities committed by him while working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Building Section for recommending issue of wrong Occupancy/Completion Certificates in respect of seven plots of Block-B, Sector- 8, Dwarka. Shri B.G. Roy, Chief Engineer (Retired) was appointed as Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 26.04.2010 and held the Articles of charges as proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of "reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for one year; during the penalty period he will not earn any increment and on restoration after expiry of the penalty period the reduction will have the effect of postponement of one increment in future". The applicant made an appeal 3 OA No.2713 /2014 against this order which was rejected by the Appellate Authority i.e., Lt. Governor, Delhi on 13.01.2014.
3. The charge against the applicant was that while working in Building Section as Assistant Engineer (Civil) during the period 2005-2006 he was required to inspect the sites under his jurisdiction i.e. various properties at Block-B, Sector-8, Dwarka, before recommending them for approval of Occupancy/Completion Certificates and to check the inspection report submitted by his subordinate Junior Engineers (JEs). He was also required to monitor the functioning of his subordinate JEs and to check the "Field Observation Book"
maintained by his subordinate JEs working under him.
It was observed that in respect of 07 plots, i.e.,plot Nos.99, 137, 202, 245, 305, 312 and 320, wrong Occupancy/Completion Certificates were recommended for approval by him. These OCs/CCs were recommended even though these units were deficient in several aspects of construction like sanitary fittings and fixtures and despite these not being fit for occupation. It was further observed that construction has not been done as per sanctioned plan.4 OA No.2713 /2014
4. The applicant had challenged the above mentioned order on the following grounds: -
(a) He has argued that he was not supplied the relied upon documents in the charge sheet which he had specifically sought to make his representation against the charge sheet. He has submitted that such a conduct of the respondents was not only against the principles of natural justice but also against the well settled principles as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha JT 2010 (1) SC
618.
(b) He has further contended that the dates of documents S-2 & S-4 i.e., photocopies of site inspection report of Vigilance Department, are at variance with the dates conveyed by Director (Vig.) vide memo dated 22.02.2008 implying the mala fide on the part of the Vigilance Department and in turn mala fide on the part of the Disciplinary Authority.
(c) He further argued that the Inquiry was initiated on the basis of a complaint but the complainant 5 OA No.2713 /2014 was not produced in the inquiry and was not allowed to be examined by the applicant.
(d) He further argued that the inquiry report was vitiated as it was a case of no evidence because the prosecution witnesses have established that the charges made against the applicant were wrong and stood disapproved. The applicant argued that the inquiry officer has acted far beyond his judicial authority to interpret the evidence of prosecution witness in a manner prejudicial to the applicant and has wrongly came to the conclusion that he would rather rely on the documents including documents S-2 and S-5 to reach a conclusion. Therefore, the applicant argued that the inquiry officer has himself taken upon himself the role of a prosecutor.
(e) He further argued that the necessity of procuring photos of the building from outside and inside before issuing the CCs/OCs are not mandatory as per B.B.L./Departmental Instructions. There was no requirement to submit internal photographs of the building to prove the existence of fittings and fixtures. 6 OA No.2713 /2014 External photographs of the building were adequate requirement for issuing CCs/OCs.
(f) A very important ground taken by him was that it was not part of the duty of the applicant who was Assistant Engineer at the time of inquiry, to inspect the building in respect of which CCs/OCs were issued. He referred to office orders issued vide F.No.26(27)68-Blg. dated 13.09.1984 para D(i) that states that Jr. Engineer will inspect the building for sanction/refusal of Occupancy Certificates. Another circular issued on 12.04.2002 clearly states in para A(i) that inspection of completion of work up to plinth level will be carried out by Jr. Engineer for plots measuring upto 500 Sqm. area. It is, therefore, his contention that it was not part of responsibility or duty of the Assistant Engineer to inspect these buildings. He only was to see that the Inspection Report submitted by the Junior Engineer was in order and recommend issuance of CCs/OCs to the concerned persons.
(g) He further argued that once the inquiry officer's report was supplied to him, he had raised a large number of issues. However, in reply to the 7 OA No.2713 /2014 same, the Disciplinary Authority has disregarded all these issues summarily and has not discussed them in his order. The applicant raised the same allegation with respect to the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
5. The respondents through the detailed written statement have refuted the issues raised by the applicant. Our attention was drawn to the report of the Inquiry Officer Paragraph 2(III), which states,"the charged Officer (CO)had inspected the listed documents as well as had received photocopies of the listed documents. CO further stated that he has no doubt about the genuineness of these documents.
xxx xxx xxx Other documents were allowed after taking into account PO's comments.
xxx xxx xxx All the listed documents were taken on record as S-1 to S-3."
Further, in paragraph 2(V), he has stated that "the Disciplinary Authority vide his Corrigendum dt. 09.10.2009 had added 3 more documents as listed documents. CO raised objection to the same stating 8 OA No.2713 /2014 that this is not the stage when any documents can be added to existing documents.
xxxx xxxx xxxx PO was directed to offer the inspection of three documents and supply photocopies of the same to CO by 21.10.09, & CO was also directed to submit a list of further additional documents and additional witnesses if any for his defense by 28.10.09."
And still further in paragraph 2(VI) it is stated that he had already inspected and had received copies of 3 additional listed documents."
6. The respondents have claimed that these recordings in the inquiry report which are not either disputed or refuted by the applicant, adequately establish that all the documents that were relied upon by the inquiry officer were actually handed over/inspected by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant's contention that by not giving the copies of the relied upon documents, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice, is absolutely wrong and unacceptable.
As regards the examination of the complainant, the respondents' stand is that the applicant was given the opportunity to call him as a defense witness, an opportunity that the applicant chose not to exercise. 9 OA No.2713 /2014 The respondents submitted that from their perspective, there was no necessity to call the complainant and examine him in the present case because the contents of the complaint were self evident and verifiable.
7. The respondents have further submitted that the inquiry officer has taken into account all the documents and the evidences available to him in a holistic manner. He has taken into account not only the inspection report submitted by the vigilance team of four officers (S2), but also on the Inspection Report of Director (Vig.) (S4). The inquiry Officer has very clearly and comprehensively given the reasons for treating part of the oral evidences of some of the prosecution witnesses, specifically, Shri G.S. Asowal and Shri P.K. Chona as motivated when seen in the light of the actual inspection report conducted by these prosecution witnesses themselves and that the contradiction has been explained explicitly.
8. The respondents drew our attention to the format of the Inspection Report and the CCs/OCs Certificate, which can be seen at page 227-230 of the paper book. It was argued by the respondents that the Inspection Report specifically provides that the officer giving the 10 OA No.2713 /2014 certificate personally inspects the building; likewise the officer recommending the approval of issuance of CCs/OCs also has to certify that the building has been constructed according to the sanctioned plan and structural design which incorporates the provisions of safety. The certifying officer has to further record that the construction has been done under his supervision and guidance and adherence to the drawings submitted and the records of supervision have been maintained by him. Lastly, the Completion-cum-Occupation Certificate provides that the officer issuing the certificate certifies that the building is as per the description below (which has to be attached), certified plan and the plots have been inspected with reference to building bye-law in respect of the structural safety, fire safety, hygienic and sanitary conditions inside and in the surroundings and is fit for occupation and release of regular water and electricity connection. Based on these formats of reporting and certification, it is the contention of the respondents that the applicant has been completely amiss in carrying out his responsibilities and even though the inspection was done by the Junior Engineer, it does not absolve the applicant of his responsibility to cross check the 11 OA No.2713 /2014 authenticity and correctness of the inspection report submitted by the Junior Engineer. It is further contended by the respondents that the requirement of submitting the photographs should have included the photographs of the building from outside and inside, was not followed by the applicant which the inquiry officer has pointed out and was one of the basic methods to verify the correctness of the construction requirements.
The respondents drew our attention to the part of the inquiry report, which dealt with the duties of the AE (B) in regard to sanction/approval of OCs. The following part of the inquiry report is extracted here: -
"As per exh D-2, the specific duty of AE(B) in regard to issue of OC/CC is to re- examine the reports on the notice of completion submitted by JE. The word re- examine needs to be analysed properly in order to pin point the duty of AE(B). As per oxford dictionary, the word "Examination" means a detailed inspection again or/and to look closely again. AE is required to inspect the site for close look and submit his recommendations to Dy. Dir(B). However, checking on the part of JE & AE may not be exactly of the same nature. On the part of JE it is operative where as on the part of AE, the same is supervisory. But inspection is mandatory on the part of AE(B). Re-examination can not be done without inspection of the site.
Further as per Building permit hand book procedure of DDA "The owner shall 12 OA No.2713 /2014 submit the notice of completion plan along with required documents and plans as mentioned in para 2(c) at page 4". So before recommending issue of OC/CC, AE(B) must ensure that owner has submitted all documents as mentioned in para 2(c) of page 4 of above hand book and he must ensure that the work is complete in all respect fit for occupation. This can be ensured from building photographs supposed to be submitted by the owner as per above list 2(c) page 4. So I hold that before recommending issue of OC/CC AE(B) becomes duty bound to ensure that sufficient no. of building photographs have been submitted by the owner showing inside & out side of the building i/c photographs of inside of kitchen, toilet, W.C. showing the existence of fittings and fixtures as well as photographs of roof showing existence of Tank including other necessary photographs to show the completion of the buildings i/c sanitary, water supply and sewage fittings and fixtures. If AE(B) recommends issue of OC/CC without above documents and at the same time without inspection of site and specially without sufficient number of building photographs showing that the building is fit for occupation i/c fittings and fixtures and if later on it is found that the building is not complete AE(B) can not escape responsibility for recommending wrong OC/CC."
9. The respondents also placed before us the ruling, namely, Union of India Vs. H.S. Rookiwal and Ors. (2013) SSC Online Del 2753, which held that supervisory lapses constitute a grave misconduct/negligence and, therefore, even if the applicant's argument that his role was only supervisory, 13 OA No.2713 /2014 his non observance of any steps that could be considered supervisory, conclusively establishes his misconduct.
10. We have carefully heard the learned counsels for both the parties, perused the documents on record and also given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter.
11. One issue that needs to be clearly understood is whether the applicant carried out any exercise to establish the credibility or veracity of the inspection reports of Junior Engineer. It is not disputed that for the plots measuring less than 500 Sq. meters, the inspection has necessarily to be done by Junior Engineer. However, the rules do not prescribe that Assistant Engineer is prohibited from carrying out some sample inspections. Asamatter of fact, the common understanding of supervision normally includes some sample checks by the supervisory authority in such matters. It is clearly established that the applicant, as a matter of fact, did not carry out any check whatsoever and, therefore, it is difficult to accept the argument of the applicant that he was not supposed to carry out any inspection or checks whatever, because his role was only supervisory. Supervisory role also needs to be 14 OA No.2713 /2014 defined or explained in terms of some minimal effort on the part of the supervisory authority that goes to establish that the report of a Junior Officer before being accepted was subjected to some scrutiny. We are also not convinced with the argument of the applicant that the requirement of the photographs has not been laid down in the rules. Our understanding of the rules is that if the photographs of the building from outside are to be accepted as an evidence of the construction, the photographs of inside the building are equally necessary to establish the prescribed requirements like fittings and fixtures provided in that building. The inquiry officer's findings that the applicant has gravely erred in not insisting on photographs of inside the building, in our view, is completely justified and so also his findings on the scope of 're-examination'. We find that the discussion of the inquiry report with regard to what constitutes re-examination, carries a lot of sense. Re-examination in our view as well, must incorporate some definitive action by the re-examining authority. In the instant case, as is admitted by all parties concerned, the applicant had carried out virtually nothing to satisfy himself that the inspection report of Junior Engineer was correct, credible and acceptable.He 15 OA No.2713 /2014 had simply mechanically recommended these reports to higher authority for issuance of CCs/OCs.
12. As regards the contention of the applicant that non supplying of some of the documents to the applicant before the beginning of the inquiry, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, we are of the view that no prejudice is caused to the applicant because specifically during the course of inquiry all these documents were supplied to him, inspected by him and he had full opportunity to respond to any of the contents of these documents. We, therefore, reject the applicant's contention in this regard. We also cannot give much credence to the argument of the applicant that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor himself. On the contrary, we find the report of the Inquiry Officer as reasoned and cogent, adequately explaining the grounds on which he has reached these conclusions. It is certainly not acceptable that the inquiry officer has based the inquiry report without any evidence or basis.
It will be useful to reproduce here the contents of the format, namely one recommending the issuance of 16 OA No.2713 /2014 CCs/OCs and one, which is Completion-cum-Occupancy Certificate.
"The Vice-Chairman The Commissioner Delhi Development Authority Municipal Corporation of Delhi New Delhi Delhi Sir, We hereby certify that the erection/re-erection or material alteration in/at building No.______on/in Plot No.________,Block No._______Situated at_______.Scheme has been supervised by us and has been completed on______. According to the plans sanctioned, vided office communication No. ______dt.______. The work has been completed to our satisfaction, the workmanship and all the materials (type and grade) have been used strictly in accordance with general and detailed specifications. All the drainage/sanitary/water supply work has been executed under our supervision and as per building bye- Laws/sanctioned plan. No provision of the Building Bye-Laws and conditions prescribed or orders issued there under have been transgressed in the course of the work. The building is fit for use for which it has been erected/re-erected or altered/constructed and enlarged.
2. Certificates:
(i) Certified that the building(s) has been constructed according to the Sanctioned Plan and structural design(one set of structural drawings as executed is enclosed) which incorporate the provisions of structural safety as specified in relevant prevailing IS Codes/Standards/Guidelines.
(ii) Further certified that water harvesting as well as waste water recycling systems have been provided as per the sanctioned building plan.
(iii) It is also certified that construction has been done under our supervision and guidance and adheres to the drawings submitted and the records of supervision have been maintained by us.
3. Permission to occupy or use the building may be granted.
4. Any subsequent change from completion drawings will be the responsibility of the owner(s).
17 OA No.2713 /2014
a) Signature of the b) Signature of Architect
owner with date with Date
Name in Block Name in Block letters
letters Address License No. Address
c) Signature of d) Signature of
Structure Engineer Supervisor/Group/Engineer
with date (for with Date
certificate (1)(As Name in Block letters,
defined in NBC of Licence No.
India), Name in Address.
Block letters
Address
And
"Completion-cum-Occupancy certificate With reference to your notice of completion dated _____ I hereby certify that building, as per description below certified plan at Plot No.______ Block No._____ Scheme_______ whose plans were sanctioned vide No.______ has been inspected with reference to building bye-law in respect of the structural safety, fire safety, hygienic and sanitary conditions inside and in the surroundings and is declared fit for occupation and release of regular water and electricity connection. The description of the construction work completed is given as under:
Description of Construction work block wise/building wise
1. Block/Building No.
2. Details of completed work floor wise.
For (1) Vice-Chairman Delhi Development Authority Or (2) Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi."
13. It is accepted that in the instant case, the Completion-cum-Occupancy Certificate was signed by 18 OA No.2713 /2014 the applicant and that the recommendation also, as per the format was made by the applicant. A bare reading of these two formats makes it abundantly clear that the authorities certifying or recommending the CCs/OCs have to personally satisfy themselves about the construction. In the instant case, it is admitted by the applicant himself that he had done nothing whatsoever to verify or cross check the contents of the inspection report or posed any queries to satisfy himself that the inspection report submitted by the Junior Engineer was correct or otherwise.
14. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the objections raised by the applicant with regard to evidence in the inquiry report, do not merit acceptance and are accordingly rejected.
15. An important issue which is generally raised in such cases and has also been raised by the applicant in the present OA is whether non-discussion of grounds by the disciplinary authority/Appellate Authority in their order, if already discussed by the enquiry officer in his or her report can make such an order defective? The Apex Court has held that such a discussion in the order of Disciplinary Authority is not necessary. In the case of 19 OA No.2713 /2014 State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Others Vs. Prabhu Dayal Grover (1995) 6 SCC 279), it is held that: -
"In view of the answer so given, it has to be now seen whether under the Regulations, the concerned authorities are required to give reasons for their decisions. Regulation 68(3) lays down the procedure the Disciplinary Authority is required to follow after it receives the proceedings of the enquiry including the report of the Enquiry Officer. On careful perusal thereof we find that only in those cases where the Disciplinary Authority considers it necessary to direct fresh or further enquiry or disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it has to record the reasons for such directions, but there is no such obligation if it agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It can, therefore, be legitimately inferred that when express provisions have been made in the Regulations for recording reasons in only the first two of the three fact situations - and not the other - there is no implied obligation also to record the reasons in case of concurrence with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Even if we proceed on the basis that such an obligation is implicit, still the order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be held to be bad as, on perusal thereof, we find that before concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer it has gone through the entire proceeding and applied its mind thereto. In our considered opinion, when the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to re- appraise the evidence to arrive at the same findings. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Dutta that the order of punishment was liable to be struck down as it was a non- speaking order and did not contain any reason." (Emphasis added) 20 OA No.2713 /2014
16. In the light of the above discussion, we are of considered view that the grounds raised in the OA by the applicant against his punishment order fail to establish any illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders.
17. Besides, the scope and extent of intervention by the Tribunal and even High Courts in matters of Disciplinary proceedings is circumscribed by the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court as of several High Courts. Some of the judgments that can be referred to in this regard include,
i) State of Andhra Pradesh versus Sree Rama Rao (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. Page 1723);
ii) B.C.Chaturvedi versus Union of India &Ors. (J.T. 1995(8) S.C. Page 65/(1995 (6) SCC 750);
iii)Government of Tamil Nadu versus A.Rajapandian ( A.I.R. 1995 S.C. Page 561;
iv) Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank&Ors.
v.P.C.Kakkar (2003(4) S.C.C. Page 364) 21 OA No.2713 /2014
v) State of Uttar Pradesh & Another v.
Man Mohan NathSinha& Another (A.I.R. 2010 S.C. Page 137);
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Nasrulla Khan (2006(2) S.C.C Page 82) has again reiterated the scope of judicial review as confined to correct the errors of law or procedural error if results in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Court in para 7 has held that:
"By now it is a well established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error if any resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tewari v.Union of India (2013(7) Scale Page 417) has reiterated 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 22 OA No.2713 /2014 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.
19. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated his earlier view that the High Court as well Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding departmental proceedings against a public servant. After relying upon the judgment Sree Rama Rao (supra) dismissed the SLP in case of State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar and Another (2011 STPL (web) 904). Para 8 of the judgment reads as under: -
"8. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court 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. This position of law has been reiterated in several decision by this Court which we need not refer to, and yet by the impugned judgment the High Court has re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion 23 OA No.2713 /2014 that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations leveled against the respondent no.1 do not constitute any misconduct and that the respondent No.1 was not guilty of any misconduct."
20. Culled out from these judgments, the following broad guidelines, inter alia, emerge
a) Tribunals should not, generally, reappreciate the evidence considered by the disciplinary authority, as they should not act like an appellate authority;
b) They should not interfere unless there is a substantial procedural lapse committed by the enquiry officer;
c) They should not interfere unless there is evident violation of Principles of Natural Justice and fair opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the charged officer;
d) They should not go into the question of
quantum of punishment unless it is
grossly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and/or shocking to the conscience.
21. These guidelines for the Tribunals get strong support and endorsement from a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India 24 OA No.2713 /2014 v.P.Gunasegaram (2015 (2) S.C.C. Page 610) in pares 12, 13 & 20, wherein it was 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 25 OA No.2713 /2014 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) 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 26 OA No.2713 /2014 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."
22. The guidelines enunciated in the judgment above are as relevant and useful for adjudication of Departmental Proceedings in Tribunals as they are for High Courts. If we consider the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. 27 OA No.2713 /2014 Gunasekaran(supra), we cannot fail but conclude that the instant case does not merit any interference by us as no aspect of this case qualifies for an intervention by the Tribunal. Not only this, in the instant case the enquiry officer cannot be faulted for reaching a conclusion as he has about the culpability of the applicant in the alleged misconduct. We find no reason to disagree with his findings in the light of discussions in previous paragraphs.
23. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the grounds raised by the applicant while challenging the impugned punishment order are devoid of substance and merit and we have no hesitation in rejecting them. Resultantly, the OA deserves dismissal and is, accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Uday Kumar Varma) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vb/