Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
P Manoj Kumar vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 7 March, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00346/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 07.02.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 07.03.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Sri. P. Manoj Kumar,
S/o Parasappa Dharwad,
Aged about 50 years,
R/a No: H No: 156, Hirepeth,
Old Hubli, Hubli - 580 024. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri L. Mahesh)
Vs.
1. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner
EPFO, Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 066.
2. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Also the Appellate Authority,
Zonal Office, Navanagar,
Hubballi - 580 025. (Additional Charge)
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - 2,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,
Aland Road, Kalburgi - 585 101. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. Shwetha Anand)
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2025.03.11
12:52:16+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
This OA has been filed on 17.07.2023 against the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure - A5) by which the "major penalty" of "dismissal from the service" has been imposed upon the applicant, and the order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure - A7) by which the appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed by the appellate authority. The reliefs claimed by the applicant in para 8 of the OA are as under:-
"i) Call for the entire records.
ii) Quash and set-aside the Impugned Orders
bearing No. KN/HBL/ZO/MK Appeal/2023-24/151 &:
KN/GLB/RO/MK/VIG/2022-23/43 passed by the Respondent No.2 & 1, dated 26.05.2023 & 10/02/2023 at Annexure - A5 & A7, as the same is unjust arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant back into service as if there was no order of Dismissal against him with all other consequential monetary benefits in accordance with the law.
iv) Pass such other order/directions that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. It is not in dispute that the applicant was working as Senior Social Security Assistant (SSSA) at Regional Office, Hubballi mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE under the control of respondents. On 03.05.2018, a charge sheet (Annexure - A1) was issued to the applicant and the applicant filed the representation / reply. Thereafter, inquiry officer was appointed who conducted the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and submitted his report dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure - A2). Thereafter, a memo (Annexure - A3) dated 24.11.2022 was issued to the applicant along with the copy of inquiry report and 15 days time was granted to file the representation against the aforesaid inquiry report. The applicant filed the reply (Annexure
- A4) on 08.12.2022. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order (Annexure - A5) dated 10.02.2023 and by the aforesaid order the "major penalty" of "dismissal from services"
of Central Board of Trustees, EPFO was awarded. The applicant submitted the appeal (Annexure - A6) dated 14.03.2023 and the appellate authority after consideration rejected the appeal by order (Annexure - A7) dated 26.05.2023.
3. The applicant challenged the impugned orders Annexure
- A5 & A7 by filing this OA. As per applicant, the charges against the applicant have not been proved and the findings of the inquiry officer are against the evidence on record. There was no evidence against the applicant. The inquiry officer raised a desired report contrary to the evidence available on record. The said orders mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Annexure - A5 & A7 are illegal. The appellate authority also passed the order cryptically and mechanically without applying his own mind.
4. As per pleadings of the applicant, charges are solely based on the alleged confession made by the applicant which has been given greater credibility while the same was obtained by undue pressure. The charges framed are not proper. The charges do not point out any infraction of the nature. No time, place and date of the alleged incident has been mentioned. Charges are simply vague and unspecific and not been able to establish the commission of any offence. The very object of issuing the charge memo itself gets defeated and all further proceedings in pursuance of such a vague charge would be vitiated and no penalty can be imposed upon the vague charges. It is also submitted that the charge memo is not in accordance with the rules as the same do not have imputation at all rather in the guise of imputation the much controversial confessions alleged to have been obtained by the applicant.
5. It is again submitted that in the charge sheet initially only 3 witnesses were mentioned, however, the prosecution in connivance with the disciplinary authority added 9 other witnesses mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE without even informing the applicant by completely taking undue advantage of his lack of knowledge.
6. It is again submitted that before examination of the other witnesses, the examination of the applicant was conducted. The number of witnesses were cited but they were not examined according to the serial numbers.
7. It is again submitted that the inquiry officer submitted the report dated 27.07.2022 which is also not in accordance with the law. Any opportunity was not given to the applicant while it has been said in the inquiry report that charged official has not produced any defense documents or defense witnesses even though number of opportunities were given during the inquiry to the charged official to make his submission. The report has been prepared only upon the basis of chief examination of the applicant and the cross-examination conducted by the applicant has been ignored. Out of 14 witnesses, only 6 witnesses have been considered while the remaining 8 witnesses established the innocence of the applicant. Only 3 witnesses out of the above 6 witnesses were relied by the inquiry officer, even these witnesses are those who are the main culprits. The applicant also mentioned various case laws in the OA but at the time of arguments he drew mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE attention towards only 4 case laws, referred in subsequent paras of this judgment. It is also submitted by the applicant that the appellate authority also did not apply his mind and mechanically rejected his appeal. The order of appellate authority demonstrated total non-application of mind. Therefore, both orders are liable to be set aside.
8. The respondents opposed the OA by filing the reply statement on 17.01.2024. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant during the period 2014-15 and 2015-16 is found to have committed serious acts of omissions and commissions amounting to gross misconduct. He fraudulently released pension amount to various pensioners and instigated them to unauthorise access, log-in ID of Smt. Rekha Kamat, Senior Supervisor and thus swindled the public funds to the tune of Rs.16,16,000/-
maintained by EPFO. He also released the pension arrears of Rs.2,32,000/- to Shri Abdul Karim M Khazi. He failed to maintain absolute integrity expected from a government servant and the conduct of applicant is grossly immoral and amounting to misconduct. The applicant failed to maintain absolute devotion towards his duty and acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an employee of EPFO and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of C.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE with Regulation 27 of "EPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation 1962" (Now "Regulation 22" of the "EFP (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2008".
9. It is again submitted by the respondents that after evaluating the misconduct committed by the applicant and by following the rules, the charges were framed against the applicant. The inquiry has been conducted by following the principle of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry by extending sufficient opportunities to the charged official and finally submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 25.07.2022. After taking consideration of the entire conduct of the applicant and the inquiry report, the major penalty of dismissal from service has been awarded to the applicant which requires no interference. The appellate authority also considered the matter in detail and after applying his mind rightly dismissed the appeal because the inquiry was made well within the framework of Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
10. It is again submitted by the respondents that the charges have been found proved without any doubt. Inquiry was conducted by following the principle of natural justice and by giving due mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE opportunity to the charged official to prove his innocence. The applicant was given various opportunities to put forward his defense and proper opportunity of hearing was also given. Disciplinary authority and appellate authority both passed their orders after applying their mind and after detailed perusal of the materials on record in the inquiry. Therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
11. By Annexure - A1, the charge sheet was communicated to the applicant on 03.05.2018. Three charges were framed against the applicant. It will be proper to mention the charges as it is:-
"STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI P.MANOJ KUMAR, SSSA. REGIONAL OFFICE, GULBARGA.
ARTICLE-I THAT, Shri. P. Manoj Kumar, SSSA (Now Headquartered at RO, Gulbarga) (hereinafter referred to as "Charged Official") in the succeeding paragraphs, while working as SSSA at Regional Office, Hubballi (then SRO, Hubballi,) during the period 2014- 15 and 2015-16 is found to have committed serious acts of omissions and commissions amounting to gross misconduct.
THAT, the Charged Official while functioning as SSSA at Regional Office, Hubballi, (then SRO, Hubballi,) has engaged himself in the activities which are criminal in nature and has been involved in fraudulently releasing pension amount to various pensioners in connivance with contingent staff and instigated them to mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE unauthorisedly access the login ID to Smt. Rekha Kamath, SS (then SSSA) and thus swindled the public funds to the tune of Rs. 16,16000/-maintained by EPFO Trust which is amounting to gross misconduct as he failed to maintain absolute integrity expected of a government servant and thus brought disrepute to his master as detailed in the Statement of Imputation (Annexure-II).
Thus by above acts of Omissions and Commissions, the said Charged Official had failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an employee of EPFO and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the staff of EPFO read with Regulations 27 of EPF (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations 1962 (now regulation 22 of the EPF (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008).
ARTICLE-II THAT, Shri. P. Manoj Kumar, SSSA (Now Headquartered at RO, Gulbarga) (hereinafter referred to as "Charged Official") in the succeeding paragraphs, while working as SSSA at Regional Office, Hubballi (then SRO, Hubballi,) during the period 2014- 15 and 2015-16 is found to have committed serious acts of omissions and commissions amounting to gross misconduct.
THAT, the Charged Official while functioning as SSSA at Regional Office, Hubballi (then SRO, Hubballi,) has engaged himself in the activities which are criminal in nature and has been involved in fraudulently releasing pension arrears of Rs. 2,32,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs thirty two thousand only) to Sri Abdul Karim M Khazi, PPO No. 40198 (PF Code No. GB/HBL/7878/1 (i.e. KN/7878/1) and thus swindled the public fund maintained by EPFO which is amounting to gross mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE misconduct as he failed to maintain absolute integrity expected of a government servant and thus such conduct is grossly immoral that all reasonable men will say that the employee cannot be trusted which is amounting to gross misconduct as detailed in the Statement of Imputation (Annexure-II).
Thus by above acts of Omissions and Commissions, the said Charged Official had failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an employee of EPFO and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(1), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the staff of EPFO read with Regulations 27 of EPF (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations 1962 (now regulation 22 of the EPF (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008). ARTICLE-III THAT, Shri P. Manoj Kumar, SSSA (Now Headquartered at RO, Gulbarga) (hereinafter referred to as "Charged Official") in the succeeding paragraphs, while working as SSSA at Regional Office, Hubballi (then SRO, Hubballi,) during the period 2014- 15 and 2015-16 is found to have committed serious acts of omissions and commissions amounting to gross misconduct.
THAT, the Charged Official while functioning as SSSA at Regional Office, Hubballi (then SRO, Hubballi,) has engaged himself in the activities which are criminal in nature and has been involved in fraudulently enhancing the Monthly Member Pension from Rs. 950/- p.m. to Rs. 3997/- p.m. to Mr. Sathyanarayana P Shet, PPO No. 62704 PF Code No. GB/HBL/17192/1 by changing the same through Special 10D Function in the system and thus swindled the public fund maintained by EPFO and caused loss to the EPFO Trust which is amounting to gross misconduct as he failed to maintain absolute integrity expected of a government servant and thus mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE such conduct of the official makes it unsafe for the employer to retain in service which is amounting to gross misconduct as detailed in the Statement of Imputation (Annexure-II).
Thus by above acts of Omissions and Commissions, the said Charged Official had failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an employee of EPFO and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the staff of EPFO read with Regulations 27 of EPF (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations 1962 (now regulation 22 of the EPF (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulations 2008)."
12. Along with the aforesaid charge sheet, the "Statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehaviour" and a list of the documents stated in Annexure - A3 was also supplied along with the copy of documents. The Inquiry Officer, after inquiry submitted his report dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure - A2) which runs about 20 pages. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued the memorandum (Annexure - A3) dated 24.11.2022 and gave the opportunity to file the representation within 15 days. The applicant submitted his representation dated 08.12.2022 in 5 pages. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure - A5).
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
13. In the order Annexure - A5 dated 10.02.2023, all three charges as per charge sheet were mentioned. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority mentioned the following observations, details and punishment:-
"And whereas, Shri. Ashwin Raj, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Hubballi was appointed by the Addl.Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Zonal Office, Karnataka & Goa, Hubballi as the Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as the IO) in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- Rule 2 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rule, 1971 vide Order No.KN/HBL/ZO/2019-20/843 dated 18.02.2020 to inquire into the charges framed against Shri. P. Manoj Kumar, Sr.SSA, the Charged Official (hereinafter referred to as the CO) vide the above stated Charge Memorandum.
And whereas the IO has submitted his findings vide his Inquiry Report dated 22.07.2022 as the charges as stated in Article I, II & III of the Charge Memo are proved.
And whereas having gone through the Inquiry Report filed by the IO and other evidences on record, I tentatively accepted the Inquiry Report filed by Inquiry Officer and accordingly, the Inquiry Report was served on the CO on 24.11.2022 vide Memorandum No.KN/GLB/RO/MK/VIG/2022-23/19 dated 24.11.2022 to afford him opportunity of making any representation if wishes so within a period of 15 days.
And whereas, in reply to the same, Shri. P. Manoj Kumar, Sr.SSA, Regional Office, Kalaburagi has submitted his representation dated 08.12.2022.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE And whereas submission made by the CO has been examined vis-à-vis Inquiry report filed by Inquiry Officer, the statement of witnesses before the Inquiry Officer and the other evidences on record. It is noticed that the facts as submitted by the CO vide his representation dated 08.12.2022 have already been presented before the Inquiry Officer vide his submission dtd 19.01.2022 and Sh P. Manoj Kumar, Sr SSA had cross examined different witnesses as mentioned in his representation dtd 08.12.2022 during the inquiry before the Inquiry Officer and Inquiry Officer after considering the submission made by the CO as well as statements made by the witnesses has concluded his findings with respect to charges framed against CO vide Charge Memo No.KN/RO/HBL/MK/VIG/2018-19/81 Dated 03.05.2018.
And whereas having gone through submission made by both the IO & the CO and other evidences on record, I find no reason to differ from the findings of Inquiry Officer and accordingly, accept the Inquiry Report of Inquiry Officer as Charges framed against the CO as stated in Article I, II & III of the Charge Memo No.KN/RO/HBL/MK/VIG/2018-19/81 Dated 03.05.2018 have been proved beyond doubt and thus, by the aforesaid act Shri. P. Manoj Kumar, Sr.SSA has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of Central Board of Trustees, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation by virtue of Regulations 27 of EPF (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations 1962 {now regulation 22 of EPF (Officers & Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008}.
Now, Therefore, considering the grave nature of misconduct, undersigned in exercise of powers of Appointing/Disciplinary Authority as vested vide Rule mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 8(3) of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, applied my mind and taking a conscious decision, herein, hereby impose a major penalty of "DISMISSAL" from the services of Central Board of Trustees, EPFO and which would be a bar to future employment under the Central Board and thus order accordingly.
[GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL AT KALABURAGI ON THIS 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023] (Ravi Yadav) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, Kalaburagi.
रिव यादव / RAVI YADAV ेि य भिव िनिध आयु-II Regional P.F. Commissioner-II & OIC ेि य कायालय, कलबुरगी-५८५ १०१.
Regional Office, Kalaburagi - 585 101. To, Shri. P. Manoj Kumar, Sr.Social Security Assistant, EPFO, Regional Office, Kalaburagi."
14. The applicant preferred the appeal (Annexure - A6) dated 14.03.2023. After taking into consideration the appeal, the appellate authority passed the order (Annexure - A7) dated 26.05.2023. The appellate authority also mentioned the details of charges framed against the applicant. Thereafter, in the remaining part of the order, the following observations and the result is mentioned:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE " Whereas, the Charged Official aggrieved by the Penalty Order No. KN/GLB/RO/MK/VIG/2022-23/43 dated 10.02.2023, Issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, RO, Gulbarga, thereby imposed a major penalty of " Dismissal" from the services of Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, made an appeal, under 19(ii) of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971, vide Appeal dated 14.03.2023 Wherein it was submitted by the charged official:
1. That in the said inquiry proceedings, the prosecution began examining the Appellant at the very beginning of the proceedings, contrary to all norms and rules.
2. That none of the witnesses who were examined on the prosecution side produced any documents other than which are mentioned in the charge memorandum. The chits/slips which are alleged to have been issued by the Appellant was not produced by any of the prosecution witnesses and the same was not provided or furnished to the appellant throughout the proceedings and no such record of handing over the same to the appellant or any of its witnesses or the officers of the organisation.
3. That the charges are solely relying on his alleged confession, which has been accorded higher credibility.
Furthermore, there has been no questioning or doubt raised regarding his confession, treating it as unquestionable truth, without considering the appellant's repeated assertions of obtaining it under pressure.
4. That the charges are simply vague and unspecific, and they would not establish the commission of any offense.
5. That the number of witnesses has been increased from 3 to 9 without informing the appellant by completely taking undue advantage of his lack of knowledge, detrimental to his interest in the legal matter.
6. That the witnesses were not examined in the order as mentioned by the prosecution witness numbers. mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
7. That opportunity was not extended to the appellant to submit his defence.
8. That the inquiry was biased and prejudiced.
9. That the inquiry officer relied on the witnesses whose login IDs were associated with the alleged illegality.
10. That the inquiry report is one sided and not in accordance with the law.
The Disciplinary Authority/ Officer In Charge of RO, Gulbarga has submitted the following comments on the appeal:
1. The inquiry was conducted by Inquiry Officer following the principle of natural justice giving due opportunity to charged Official to prove his innocence.
2. The charges have been framed by the RO, Hubballi based on the evidence on record.
3. The Charge sheet has been framed correctly and any person reading it would understand the facts of the case and the circumstances leading to the issue of the charge sheet.
4. The Charge Sheet is specific and conveys the message to the delinquent employee the exact nature of the alleged misconduct.
5. Statement recorded by the charged official before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, RO, Hubballl is fact on the record. During the inquiry held on 29.07.2021 (Daily order sheet No. 13) Shri B Andrew Prabhu, RPFC-I was inquired if any pressure was put on Shri P Manoj Kumar to make statement as recorded on 15.09.2016 and to submit letter dated 14.02.2018 & 16.02.2018, to which he replied that no pressure was put on Shri P Manoj Kumar. Inquiry Officer further accorded the opportunity to the charged official to cross examine the witness Shri B Andrew Prabhu, RPFC-I. However, the charged official declined to cross examine the witness. This shows that inquiry has been conducted by the IO following principle of natural justice. Had there been any pressure on him to give statement before mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the RPFC-I, RO, Hubballl; he could have cross examined the officer during the Inquiry.
6. Reading of the inquiry report clearly shows that inquiry has been conducted by the inquiry officer in a fair manner without any bias and prejudice. There is no vested interest and inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer following the principle of natural justice giving due opportunities to the prosecution as well as the charged Official to defend their case.
7. Inquiry officer after considering all evidences on records, statement of the prosecution witnesses and evidences on record has concluded the inquiry and submitted the report which is self explanatory.
8. Disciplinary Authority tentatively accepted the Inquiry report of IO based on evidence on record without any biased mind.
9. The charges of misconduct are related to serious acts of Omissions and Commission. These are related to swindling the public fund to the tune of 16,16,000/-
maintained by EPFO trust, fraudulently enhancing the monthly member pension from Rs. 950/- per month to Rs. 3997/- per month and fraudulently releasing pension arrears of Rs. 2,32,000/- to one of the pensioners. All the three charges framed In the Charge Memorandum have been proved beyond doubt.
10. Disciplinary Authority after convincing himself fully that charges have been proved beyond doubt, proceeded further for imposing penalty and due procedure for the same was adopted. In accordance with the Vigilance Head Quarters, New Delhi Circular No. Vig/Coord/DP/Gen/2020/715 dated 05.08.2020, after taking 2nd stage view of Central Vigilance Officer, EPFO and considering the grave nature of Charges, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of "Dismissal" from the services on the charged official.
11. The charged official has not submitted any new evidence/fact which was not presented before Inquiry Officer. Further all these facts were presented before inquiry Officer and IO has concluded his findings after mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE taking into consideration of the submission made by charged official.
I have carefully gone through the Charge Memorandum, Order of Disciplinary Authority, and Comments on the case received from Disciplinary Authority and the grounds produced for appeal made by the charged Official, Shri P Manoj Kumar, SSSA (Dismissed).
The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer by following the principle of natural justice giving due opportunity to the charged official to prove his innocence. Opportunity has been given to the charged official to present his version and cross examine the witness. The Charged Official has not raised any objection when the opportunity given to present his version and come up with new submission after the concluding the inquiry and holds no merit. Based on the evidences on records and statement of the prosecution witnesses, the charges framed are found proper beyond doubt. The Charged Official not only destroyed the reputation of the organization but also attempted to tarnish the image of his colleagues by using their login IDs without their knowledge. This clearly demonstrates the criminal motive of the Charged Official and cases are being filed in the Hon'ble court by the Police Department. The Disciplinary Authority has concluded his finding as charges are proved after thorough verification of inquiry report and supporting documents. Moreover, it is found that the Disciplinary Authority has after duly considering the gravity of misconduct and other documents on records has passed the order of Dismissal after taking 2nd stage view of Central Vigilance Officer, EPFO.
I do not find merits in the submission made by the charged official to warrant any change in the order of Disciplinary Authority.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Therefore, I MSK V V Satyanarayana, Appellate Authority exercising the powers conferred under Rule 20 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules 1971, hereby uphold the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and dispose the appeal accordingly.
(MSKVV Satyanarayana) Appellate Authority/Add. Central PF Commissioner, Zonal Office, Hubballl (Addl. Charge)."
15. The applicant counsel, in support of his contention cited the following cases:-
i) Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corporation vs. Santosh Kumar decided by the Supreme Court on 23.05.2006 reported in 2006 AIR SCW 249 = 2006 (11) SCC 147.
ii) H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Mahesh Dahiya judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10913 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25742/2015).
iii) Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer & ors. Decided by the Supreme Court on 08.05.1985 reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121 = (1985) 3 SCC 378.
iv) Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & ors decided by the Supreme Court on 19.12.2008 reported in AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 921 = 2009 (2) SCC 570.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
16. In the case of Santosh Kumar (supra), the counsel draws attention towards the last para of the judgment in which the Court found that the appellate authority did not apply his mind, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted for fresh disposal. The Court said in the last para as under:-
"A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, have no other option except to set-aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the detailed representation made by the respondent and also consider the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer and the records placed before him in its proper perspective and decide the matter afresh on merits. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the entire case only on the basis of records already on record. The respondent is not permitted to place any further material or record before the Disciplinary Authority. The order passed by the High Court is set-aside for the above reason. We also set-aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The Disciplinary Authority is also directed to dispose of the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
17. In the case of Mahesh Dahiya (supra), the counsel draws attention towards para 26. In the aforesaid para, the Court found that the disciplinary authority formed the opinion to punish the employee without giving an opportunity to submit the representation. It has been said that:-
"26. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have heavily relied on the fact that before forwarding the copy of the report by letter dated 02.04.2008 the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members have already formed an opinion on 25.02.2008 to punish the writ petitioner with major penalty which is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that before making opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit the representation/reply on the inquiry report which finds a charge proved against the delinquent. The opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members on 25.02.2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments of the writ petitioner on the inquiry report. The writ petitioner in his representation to the inquiry report is entitled to point out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in appreciation of evidence, any misleading of evidence both oral or documentary. In his representation any inputs and explanation given by the delinquent are also entitled to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority before it embarks with further proceedings as per statutory rules. We are, thus, of the view that there was violation of principle of natural justice at the level of Disciplinary Authority when opinion was formed to punish the writ petitioner with dismissal without forwarding the inquiry report to the delinquent and before obtaining his comments on the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE inquiry report. We are, thus, of the view that the order of the High Court setting aside the punishment order as well as the Appellate order has to be maintained."
18. In the case of Anil Kumar (supra), the counsel draws attention towards para 5 in which the duties of the inquiry officers and the requirement of principles of natural justice have been stated. It was found that the inquiry officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Para 5 says that:-
"5. We have extracted the charges framed against the appellant. We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is well-settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded his ipse aixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not credit-worthy. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well-settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be atleast a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non-application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court."
19. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the counsel draws attention towards para 10 in which the Court said that the inquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The Court said in para 10 as under:-
"10. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left."
20. Before other discussions, we can refer the law related to the case. The applicant counsel argued upon the duties of Inquiry Officer. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not perform his duties as per rule and law. He recorded the statement of the applicant before recording the statements of other witnesses.
21. What are the duties of Enquiry officer? In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 398 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1947 = 2009(4) SLR 78 (SC) the Supreme Court said that a departmental proceeding is a quasi- judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are applicable.
22. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2) SCC 772 = 2010 [2] SLJ 59 [SC] = AIR 2010 SC 3131 the Supreme Court had laid down that inquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority, he has to act as independent adjudicator and he is not a representative of the department / disciplinary authority / Government. In paragraphs 28 and 30 following has been held:
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department / disciplinary authority / Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. ..........
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal / removal from service."
23. In the case of Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 356 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 646 the court again observed that the Enquiry Officer who has to be independent and not representative of the disciplinary authority if starts acting in any other capacity and proceeds to act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee, the principle of bias comes into place.
24. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High in Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR 2004 MP 821 considered Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice enumerated the seven well-recognised facets in para 7 of the judgment which is to the following effect:
"7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well-recognised facets:
(i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,
(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
(iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator, mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(iv) A witness cannot be the adjudicator,
(v) The adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges,
(vi) The adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his superiors or others,
(vii) The adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations.
If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated."
The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarised the principles in para 16 which is to the following effect:
"16. We may summarise the principles thus:
(i) The Enquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry.
Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Enquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Enquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Enquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE case employee, the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Enquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Enquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry.
Whether an Enquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may."
25. It appears from the record of Departmental Inquiry that the inquiry was started on 29.09.2020. As per Daily Order Sheet No.1 dated 29.09.2020, the question was asked to the charged official and he replied that he will be representing himself, however, he may take the assistance of defense assistant in future. Some formal questions regarding posting and introduction, etc. were also asked to the applicant. Thereafter, as per Daily Order Sheet No.2 dated 20.10.2020, the statement of applicant was recorded in question- answer form. The applicant counsel objected this procedure of recording of statement of applicant before statements of other witnesses.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
26. In the case of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen, 1967 SCC OnLine (SC) 71 : (1968) 1 SCR 307 : AIR 1968 SC 236 : (1967) 2 LLJ 715 : (1968) 2 SCJ 83, several reasons were given by the Tribunal for its conclusion that the enquiry was not properly conducted. Out of them one was "workman was examined and cross-examined even before the evidence against him was recorded". The Supreme Court observed:-
"9. This leaves over the contention that before examining the witnesses Subramaniam was subjected to a cross-examination. This was said to offend the principles of natural justice and reliance was placed on Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. Workmen [(1963) 2 LLJ 78], Sir Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen [(1963) 2 LLJ 367] , Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen [(1963) 2 LLJ 392] and Associated Cement Companies v. Workmen [(1963) 2 LLJ 396] These cases no doubt lay down that before a delinquent is asked anything, all the evidence against him must be led. This cannot be an invariable rule in all cases. The situation is different where the accusation is based on a matter of record or the facts are admitted. In such a case it may be permissible to draw the attention of the delinquent to the evidence on the record which goes against him and which if he cannot satisfactorily explain must lead to a conclusion of guilt. In certain cases it may even be fair to the delinquent to take his version first so that the enquiry may cover the point of difference and the witnesses may be questioned properly on the aspect of the case suggested by him. It is all a question of justice and fairplay. If the second procedure leads to a just decision of the disputed points and is fairer to the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE delinquent than the ordinary procedure of examining evidence against him first, no exception can be taken to it. It is, however, wise to ask the delinquent whether he would like to make a statement first or wait till the evidence is over but the failure to question him in this way does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is caused. It is only when the persons enquired against seems to have been held at a disadvantage or has objected to such a course that the enquiry may be said to be vitiated. It must, however, be emphasised that in all cases in which the facts in controversy are disputed the procedure ordinarily to be followed is the one laid down by this Court in the cited cases. The procedure of examining the delinquent first may be adopted in a clear case only. As illustration we may mention one such case which was recently before us. There a bank clerk had allowed overdrafts to customers much beyond the limits sanctioned by the bank. The clerk had no authority to do so. Before the enquiry commenced he admitted his fault and asked to be excused. He was questioned first to find out if there were any extenuating circumstances before the formal evidence was led to complete the picture of his guilt. We held that the enquiry did not offend any principles of natural justice and was proper (see Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee [ No 515 of 1966, decided on August 18, 1967] ).
10. In the present case Subramaniam had complained earlier that his version ought to have been elicited first before enquiry against him was ordered. This is exactly what was done by the enquiring officer. We had the whole of Subramaniam's statement read to us and found nothing which we can say was unfair. The enquiring officer gave him an interpreter after ascertaining if he had any objection to the person selected, asked him to reply in English or Telugu as he preferred, invited him to call some workman to assist him, asked him the names of the witnesses he wished to mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 31 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE examine and whether he wanted any further time for the preparation of his defence. He was then questioned about the loading of tyres in his van, the invoices he had signed and whether he had checked the tyres loaded. He was next asked what route he had followed, whether there was a chance of pilferage en route and whether he suspected any person of having interfered with the van. He was also asked if he was present when the stock was checked. He denied certain details of this stock taking. The issue was thus narrowed to the fact whether 8 tyres were loaded or 6, it being the case of the Company that 8 tyres were loaded and that of Subramaniam that only 6 tyres were loaded, but his receipt for 8 tyres was obtained. The witnesses who loaded the tyres were then called and were examined searchingly by the Presiding Officer and cross-examined by Subramaniam. No doubt some of the questions appeared to be leading but they were respecting the matter of record and too much legalism cannot be expected from a domestic enquiry of this character. The officer asked Subramaniam again and again whether he was defending himself properly or not and Subramaniam always expressed his satisfaction.
11. In these circumstances, we do not see how the enquiry can be said to have offended any principle of natural justice at all........."
27. Looking to the aforesaid law, the recording of statement of the delinquent employee before recording the statements of other witnesses cannot be said irregular if the circumstances are available in the case. In the present case, the circumstances were related to the admission of applicant. As per prosecution case, the applicant admitted the misconduct and irregularities during the Preliminary Inquiry and he also submitted two letters to the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 32 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Department and by submitting the aforesaid letters, the applicant admitted his guilt.
28. During Preliminary Inquiry, the statement of the applicant was recorded. The answer given by the applicant also indicates the admission of the irregularities or misconduct. It will be useful to refer the questions and answers of Question Nos. 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 16 and 19 to 21:-
"Q4) Are you aware of the payment of irregular pension arrears that occurred at SRO Hubli during 2014- 15 and 2015-16? If yes, How?
Ans) Yes, I am aware of the irregular pension arrears. I came to know of the same when Smt. Rekha Kamath (Sr.SSA) Pension section at SRO Hubli and APFC Veeramalai, noticed about the wrong payment of pension arrears.
Q6) What is your role in the irregular payment of pension arrears that occurred?
Ans) I was dealing with the establishment in Accounts Section 4. The Union Leader of Karnataka State Veneer approached me to grant arrears which are pending in respect of pensioners. So I told the contingency staff to initiate pension arrears to pensioners of Karnataka State Veeneer.
Q7) What was the specific direction given to the contingency staff by you?
Ans) I used to inform the PPO No of the pensioner and requrested to grant Rs. 21000/- uniformly to all the pensioners of Karnataka State Veneer. Q8) How were you confident that the same would escape the scrutiny of SS /AO/APFC at that point of time?
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 33 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Ans) As the work of weightage was being done and the pressure to complete the task was there on the office, the same would be passed as a regular file in my opinion. Q9) Did the payment of irregular payment of pension arrears happen in the same month or during different month?
Ans) It happened during different months. Q11) Why did you undertake to grant arrears to the pensioners when they were not eligible in the routine manner?
Ans) I thought that they are eligible and hence I undertaken to grant arrears to the pensioners. Q12) When there is a procedure for granting arrears to pensioners, were you not aware of the procedure? Ans) Yes, I am aware of the procedure. It consists of Putting up the office note, obtaining approval and then only feeding in the system.
Q13) In spite of your awareness of the procedure, you have caused the violation of the said procedure? Why? Ans) As I was knowing the Union Leader, Umesh KB, since I dealt the Code No. In Group 4, I believed his words and did him the favour.
Q14) Was anyone aware of the said violation of the said procedure?
Ans) No, no one was aware of the said violation of the said procedure.
Q15) Do you accept that the said irregular payment of pension arrears was solely due to your instigation? Ans) Yes, I accept that the said irregular payment of pension arrears was solely due to my instigation. Q16) Are you absolutely sure that no one else in the office was in connivance with you at any point of time? Ans) No, no one in the office was in connivance with me at any point of time.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 34 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Q19) What is the corrective action taken by the office to recover the said irregular payment of pension arrears? Ans) The office tried to recover from the pension accounts. Where the amount was there, the same was recovered, and wrote to letters to pensioners to refund. The balance amount not recovered was paid by me into the Pension account of EPFO in Syndicate Bank. Q20) Whether only pension arrears was given or any other type of arrears was given to them?
Ans) No, only pension arrears of Rs. 21000/- was given to pensioners in the said referred irregular payment of arrears.
Q21) Do you want to say anything more?
Ans) I would like to state that there is no role of Mrs.
Rekha Kamath and Mr. Veeramalai, APFC at any point of time. I further state that I have not indulged in any other wrongdoings in Pension section or accounts section at any point of time to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I request that as the entire amount of irregular payment of pension arrear has been recovered, it is requested to drop further proceedings in this case."
29. On 14.02.2018, the applicant himself submitted a letter in his own handwriting with his signature to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hubballi. In the aforesaid letter, he stated that:-
"To, Regional Office, Regional P.F. Commissioner -1 Hubballi Respected Sir, mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 35 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Sub: Enquiry in connection with irregularity of Pension Settlement Cases Sir, I the undersigned, attended the enquiry in respect of the PPO NO. 40198, An arrear of amount in this regard has been sanctioned of amounting Rs 2,32,000/- by oversight during May-2014 from my Login ID, which was not done purposely the said amount has sanctioned by oversight. Inspite of this case no other cases has been done.
So, Sir my kindly humbly request to not to taken any Serious action against me. I will take care to refund the said amount from the member to this office account. Forgive me sir for the above done case. Once again I promise you sir further this type of mistake will not be done in present & future during my service at EPFO.
Thanking you Sir,
14-02-2018
Hubballi Yours faithfully,
(Manoj Kumar P)
RO, Kalaburagi"
30. Another letter was also submitted by the applicant in his own handwriting with his signature on 16.02.2018 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubballi stating that:-
"To, Regional P.F. Commissioner -1 Regional Office, Hubballi Respected Sir, Sub: Attending of inquiry in respect of irregularity of Pension Settlement Cases.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 36 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Sir, I the undersigned attended the inquiry on 14- 02-2018, in r/o the above stated subject. Sir I have to state that I have the Arrears of Pension in respect of Code No. 6971 & 7878/1 by oversight, the said Arrears has not been released properly & Sir I have attended a Pension case of Bhatkal Urban Co-op Bank & released the pension on higher wahes, the said establishment was contributing on higher wages & I thought EPS contributions also has been comtributed on higher wages & I released the Pension on higher wages.
Sir, I kindly request you to forgive for my mistakes as I have not done it purposely it has been done by oversight & sir except the above said cases. I have not made an Single mistake. If any case found beyond these cases you may take serious action against me.
So sir its an humbly request to excuse me for my mistake & not to take any action against me & also see that I will make the amount refunded to the organisation A/c as early as possible.
Once again I humbly & kindly request you sir not to take any action & forgive me sir.
Thanking you Sir,
16-02-2018
Hubballi Yours faithfully,
(Manoj Kumar P)
RÒ, Kalaburagi"
31. Therefore, it appears from the aforesaid statements and the two letters submitted by the applicant that he himself admitted his guilt by submitting the letters in his own handwriting and signature. The applicant did not dispute the aforesaid fact of submission of the aforesaid two letters.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 37 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
32. In the main inquiry on 29.07.2021 as per daily order sheet No.13, the examination of Shri Andrew Prabhu was recorded. The examination has been conducted in question-answer form related to the admission of the applicant and the letters submitted by the applicant. Question Nos. 1 to 7 are relevant:-
Sl. No. Questions by Presenting Reply given by Witness Officer 1 Please state your name and I am Shri Andrew Prabhu, RPFC-
designation in EPFO? I presently posted at Regional office, Kochi.
2 Was the statement of Shri P The statement was given by Shri Manoj Kumar, dated: 15- P Manoj Kumar, Sr.SSA before 09-2016 marked as exhibit me regarding the irregular P5 made before you? payment of pension arrears in 2014-15. The statement was given before me as Disciplinary Authority as RPFC-I during the preliminary inquiry.
3 Did Shri P Manoj Kumar Yes, it was made out of his free
make the statement dated: will.
15-09-2016 out of his free
will?
4 Was any pressure put on No pressure was put on Shri P
Shri P Manoj Kumar to Manoj Kumar and the same was
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2025.03.11
12:52:16+05'30'
38
OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE make the statement as recorded during preliminary recorded on 15-09-2016 by hearing and given on his free will.
any person or persons?
5 Was any pressure put on No, there was no pressure on Shri Shri P Manoj Kumar to P Manoj Kumar and this letter submit the letter dated: 14- was submitted by him in respect 02-2018 marked as exhibit to the PPO No. 40198.
P6 by any person or persons?
6 Was any pressure put on No, there was no pressure and he Shri P Manoj Kumar to was asked to submit the submit the letter dated: 16- explanation for wrong fixation of 02-2018 marked as exhibit pension of PPO No.62704, to P7 by any person or which he has given this letter.
persons?
7 Do you want to elaborate Release of irregular payment of any other point towards pension arrears in Article I was charges framed against Shri totally against the scheme P Manoj Kumar, Sr.SSA provisions and a uniform amount under Article I, II & III? of Rs.21000/- was released in these cases. In Article II PPO No. 40198 the user id of others was used to release the arrears and in Article III the PPO No.62704 the pension was modified even mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 39 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE though the pensioner was not eligible.
33. In the aforesaid statement, the witness (who recorded the statement in preliminary inquiry) said that no pressure was put on the applicant. The opportunity to cross-examine the witness was also granted to the applicant but it is mentioned in the order sheets that the applicant declined to cross-examine the witness.
Therefore, as per law it can be presumed that the applicant admitted the aforesaid statements given by Shri Andrew Prabhu.
By the aforesaid statement it is established that the applicant admitted his guilt without any pressure and also submitted letters dated 14.02.2018 and 16.02.2018 voluntarily. In the aforesaid letters also he admitted his guilt.
34. Therefore, at the time of beginning of departmental inquiry this fact was under the knowledge that the applicant admitted his guilt and also submitted two letters. In the aforesaid situation, the Inquiry Officer decided to record the statement of the applicant first, before recording of evidence of other witnesses.
Looking to the aforesaid stated law and in the aforesaid circumstances, the act of the Inquiry Officer is found justified because he wants to curtail the inquiry. If some facts are admitted mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 40 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE by the applicant then there will be no requirement to produce the evidence upon the aforesaid issues.
35. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is that "proper charges were not framed". Any date of the act is not mentioned in the charges. Therefore, the inquiry is based upon vague charges and is liable to be quashed. On the other side, the respondents counsel submitted that the charges are specific and all relevant facts are mentioned in the charge sheet.
The charges framed in this case have been referred in earlier paras.
36. In the case of Govt. of A.P. and others and others vs. A. Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338, the Supreme Court said that "it is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific". The court observed in para 9:-
"9. ................ In Charge 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that GO, etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said GOs or directions of the Government were not even placed before the enquiry officer. Hence, Charge 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the opinion that the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 41 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged."
37. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. [(1970) 3 SCC 548: AIR 1971 SC 752] the Supreme Court held, that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 553, para 5) "5. ... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him."
38. In the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515 = (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 593 = 2013 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 42 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE SCC OnLine SC 395 [26.04.2013] the court referred State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454 = 1986 SCC (L&S) 662 = AIR 1986 SC 995 , U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav (2000) 9 SCC 327 = 2001 SCC (L&S) 79 = AIR 2000 SC 3596, Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78 = (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129 and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2011) 14 SCC 379 = (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 926, and said what is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. The Court referred the above case of Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B., (1970) 3 SCC 548: AIR 1971 SC 752 and said that Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the "statement of facts" and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 43 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
39. In this case, the copy of the charges was supplied to the applicant along with the "Statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehaviour based on which action under Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (CCA) 1971" is proposed to be taken against the applicant was also supplied. If we read both the documents together then it is found that each and everything is clear. Every act of the applicant and the fact of the case and time period are stated in the charges and the statement. No any confusion is created. The applicant was in the position to understand the charges framed against him. Therefore, the aforesaid argument cannot be accepted.
40. In the statement dated 19.11.2020 (Daily Order Sheet No. 3 of D.E.) in reply to the Question No.4 the applicant said that he was forced to accept the charges by the staff members and union leaders of Hubli office. In reply to the Question No.5, he said that all the staff of Hubli office pressurised him to accept the charges. The aforesaid contention of the applicant was required to be proved by sufficient evidence.
41. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023[3] S.L.J. 117 [C.A.NO. 11196 of 2011 decided by S.C. on 24.08.2023] court referred Orissa Mining Corporation and mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 44 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Another vs. Ananda Chandra Prusty, (1996) 11 SCC 600 and said it is well settled that, in a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the respondent. In some cases, the burden may be shifted to the respondent depending upon the explanation submitted by him.
42. In this case, the applicant did not produce any evidence for proving the fact that he was pressurised by somebody. On the other side, there were two letters dated 14.02.2018 and 16.02.2018 submitted by the applicant himself in his own handwriting and with his signature. The Officer Shri Andrew Prabhu, who recorded the statement of the applicant regarding the admission during the Preliminary Inquiry was also examined and he denied the fact of any pressure upon the applicant. The applicant did not cross- examine the aforesaid witness. Therefore, the applicant is unable to prove the fact of any pressure. It means, it is found that the applicant himself voluntarily admitted the charges during the preliminary inquiry and also by submitting the letters dated 14.02.2018 and 16.02.2018.
43. In the case of departmental inquiry, the Court has limited powers. The Court cannot sit "as appellate authority". Only mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 45 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE limited powers can be exercised by the Court. In this regard, the law is very clear.
44. In the Case of State of A.P. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 =: (1964) 3 SCR 25 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150, many principles related to powers of Court in disciplinary proceedings were discuss and court said in para 7 and 13:-
"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.
13. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, 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 decisions by this Court which we need not refer to............"
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 46 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
45. In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618, following observations made by the Court:
"Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the high court exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court."
46. Again in the case of State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557 = 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 = 1975 SCC OnLine SC 299 the principles have been further discussed in details in para 21 to 24:-
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 :
(1964) 3 SCR 25 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 47 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court 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. Second, 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 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board, representing the Union of India, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh [(1969) 1 SCC 502 : (1969) 3 SCR 548] said that the High Court does not interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority unless the finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan Singh case this Court held that the High mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 48 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the respondent was instrumental in compelling the shut- down of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that the respondent led a group of strikers and compelled them to close down their compressor could not be accepted at its face value. The General Manager did not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point. The General Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion.
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 49 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [AIR 1964 SC 477 : (1964) 5 SCR 64] .
24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do."
47. In State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 :
1977 SCC (L&S) 298 the Supreme Court succinctly summed up the important principles and said in para 4:-
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 50 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. .............. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. .......".
48. After a detailed review of the law on the subject, the supreme court while dealing with the jurisdiction of the high court or tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters and punishment in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177, opined:
"We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of Legislature or Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter of exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 51 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority."
49. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 the Supreme Court opined:-
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate 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 :
(1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at 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.
14. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 230 : (1993) 25 ATC 844] when the order of transfer was interfered with by the Tribunal, this Court held that the Tribunal was not an appellate authority which could substitute its own judgment to that bona fide order of transfer. The Tribunal could not, in such circumstances, interfere with orders of transfer of a government servant. In Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora [1993 Supp (1) SCC 551 :
1993 SCC (L&S) 281 : (1993) 23 ATC 672] it was held that the Administrative Tribunal was not an appellate authority and it could not substitute the role of authorities to clear the efficiency bar of a public servant. Recently, in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow [(1994) 2 SCC 537 : 1994 SCC (L&S) mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 52 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 687 : (1994) 27 ATC 149 : JT (1994) 1 SC 217] a Bench of this Court of which two of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members, considered the order of the Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on no evidence, went in detail into the question as to whether the Tribunal had power to appreciate the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and held that a tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would, therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence to substitute its own findings of fact to that of a disciplinary/appellate authority."
50. Again in Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. A. Rajapandian, 1995(1) SCC 216, the court opined:
"It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supports the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by re- appreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority."
51. In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 405 : 1999 SCC mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 53 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE OnLine SC 39 , decided on 20.01.1999, the Supreme Court considered the scope of interference by court in the cases of departmental enquiry and said that High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of Disciplinary Authority in the matter of facts and quantum of punishment. The Court also said that in case of finding of facts in departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts and Appellate Authority can upset the finding, but not the High Court unless the findings of Disciplinary Authority are perverse and against the Law. The High Court does not sit as Appellate Authority over the finding of Disciplinary Authority and impose some other punishment. The adequacy or in adequacy of evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court observed: -
"16. The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 54 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE to be canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well-settled principle that even though judicial review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. Lord Hailsham in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141 HL] observed:
"The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorized or enjoined by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court."
17. Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 55 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority."
52. In the case of Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India and others (2002) 7 SCC 142 the Supreme Court has observed that "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however, voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his report, "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence.
53. Again in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 = (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 the Supreme Court observed:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 56 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquires. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded on departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.
The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144])"
54. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 917 = 2015[4] SLR 244 [SC], Supreme Court also mentioned the case of State of A.P. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 in which many principles related to powers of Court in disciplinary proceedings were discussed and also mentioned para 21 to 24 of State of A.P. mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 57 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 = AIR 1975 SC 2151 and para 4 of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298 related to the principles. Court said in para 12 & 13:-
"12. ............. 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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation 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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate 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;
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 58 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(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."
55. In the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 , the Supreme Court Said :-
"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry 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 or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 59 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained ."
56. Similar view has been expressed in the later judgment of Supreme Court in Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors., (2023) SCC Online SC 27.
57. In Union of India and Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, [2022] 1 SCC 373 = 2022 SCC online 373 = 2022[2] SLR 293 [SC], Court made the following pertinent observations:
"23. The well-ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority".
58. Recently in the case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 INSC 766 = 2023[11] Scale 530 [C.A.NO. 11196 of 2011 decided by S.C. on 24.08.2023] the supreme Court said -
"36. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 60 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision- making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re- appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court.''
59. In the case of Aureliano Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and others, AIR 2023 SC 2485 = AIROnline 2023 SC 423 [12.05.2023] the Supreme Court considered the "Scope of interference by the High court in judicial review and observed in para 56 and 57 :-
"56. It may be clarified at the outset that to satisfy itself that no injustice has been meted out to the appellant, the High Court was required to examine the decision- making process and not just the final outcome. In other words, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the factual findings recorded in the departmental proceedings as long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings that cannot be faulted on account of procedural illegalities or irregularities that may have vitiated the process by which the decision was arrived at.
57. The purpose of judicial review is not only to ensure that the individual concerned receives fair treatment, but also to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, a conclusion, which is correct in the eyes of law[(1999) 1 SCC 759] .
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 61 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Notably, in Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra, a matter related to sexual harassment at the workplace [Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 3 ALL ER 141 HL. Also refer : B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749] where, aggrieved by the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority of accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer and removing the respondent therein from service on the ground that he had tried to molest a lady employee, this Court had set aside the order of the High Court that had narrowly interpreted the expression "sexual harassment" and held that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts and once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction should not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The Court is under a duty to satisfy itself that an inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment by a Committee is conducted in terms of the service rules and that the concerned employee gets a reasonable opportunity to vindicate his position and establish his innocence[Dr. Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 426] ."
60. In the case of The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr., AIR 2023 SC 2388 = AIROnline 2023 SC 414 [Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023] [17.05.2023] reliance has been placed upon Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 and observed:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 62 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "6. The facts of the case leading to the issuance of chargesheet, initiation of departmental inquiry, the report of the inquiry officer and the punishment inflicted upon respondent no.1 have already been narrated in the preceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that during the course of inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1 at every stage. This was even found by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition challenging the punishment inflicted upon him. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court shows that matter was dealt with in a manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial review. The views expressed by this Court on the scope of judicial review in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612"
61. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Subrata Nath, 2023[1] AISLJ 97 [23.11.2022] the court referred the case of B.C. Chaturvedi case (1995)6 SCC 749 and said:-
"15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 63 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
62. In the light of the aforesaid established law, if we examine the proceedings of Departmental Inquiry then it is found that the first date was 29.09.2020. On the aforesaid date formal questions were asked from the applicant. The Inquiry Officer confirmed the fact of supplying the relevant documents, articles of charge, etc. It appears that along with the memo (Annexure - A1) dated 03.05.2018, the copies of charges, Statement of Imputation of Misconduct, list of documents, etc. were given to the applicant. The applicant expressed - that he will represent himself, however, he may take the assistance of the defence assistant in future. The case was again taken on 20.10.2020 and on the said date the examination of the applicant was conducted and which was continued on 19.11.2020. On 10.12.2020, Smt. Rekha Kamat was examined. Smt. Rekha Kamat is the witness whose log-in ID was used by the applicant. The action in this case was started from the order sheet submitted by Smt. Rekha Kamat. The copy of the order sheet dated 05.08.2015 is as under:-
"Manoj Kumar Note Sheet-01 KN/PF/PDS/HBL 05/08/2015 OFFICE NOTE Subject:- Wrongly released Arrears in adjustment mode- Reg While verification in weightage Section it is noticed that some cases are not eligible for weightage arrears even mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 64 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE though arrear released from this office earoneassly or purposely b& those files put up for verification.
The P.P.O. No. 44393 is handled over to me for checking the case, on verification because the arrears released from my User ID. I shocked, as this work is not done by me, & I am dealing convertion cases & Reconsilation of Bank, even though 2 uears weightage arrears at above P.P.O released from my User ID. Immediatrly I bring to the notice of my Higher authorities for justification As per oral instrucitons of Higher Authorities. I meanwhile checked in Reports availabel in computer all P.P.O's them not only this P.P.O arrears released from my user ID. & same other cases from contigent user ID. The noticed cases list enclosed herewith, & it is observed that a most of the cases pertaining to one establishment & all cases pertaining to Syndicate Bank except few cases. I saved my user ID in my computer for last moving of work.
Kingly Investigate the same & suggest for further necessary action.
File is put up for orders Pl.
Due to this is confidential directly put up to APFC. REKHA KAMAT SSSA Sri. Srinivas Gulbarga Sr SSA and Sri Nitu and Kadalkar to very the such cases and make a list SIGNATURE"
63. In Question No. 16, the witness said that when the irregular payment of arrears of pension came to her notice, she informed the APFC in writing and a list of pensioners of to whom irregular payments were released was prepared. She again said that Manoj Kumar (Applicant) accepted the irregular payments of arrears released by him and Ms Praveen revealed the name of Shri mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 65 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Manoj Kumar's involvement in releasing irregular payments of arrears. It appears from the aforesaid daily order sheet dated 10.12.2020 that the Inquiry Officer accorded the opportunity to the charged official to cross-examine the witness Smt. Rekha Kamat. However, the applicant declined to cross-examine the witness.
64. On 28.01.2021, the witness Sri. Alister B Lopis and Smt. Roopa Satish Belludi were examined and the opportunity to cross- examine them was also given to the applicant but he declined to cross-examine the witnesses. On 06.02.2021, Ms. Parveen M Devathod was examined. This witness was working as DEO outsourced. In reply to the Question Nos. 10, 11 & 12, the witness stated that the slips were given by the applicant with PPO numbers and amounts of arrears to be released and the applicant instructed to process the arrear adjustment cases. The witness received a call from office and was advised to come to office only then she came to know about the irregular payments of pension arrears. On the said date, the witness Ms. Nafeesa was also examined. This witness was also working as DEO outsourced. In reply to Question No.11, the witness said that her log-in ID was used and 7 cases of irregular pension were released. In reply to the Question No.12, the witness stated she was not instructed to process any case mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 66 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE through her log-in ID. It also appears that the Inquiry Officer gave the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Parveen M Devathod and Ms. Nafeesa. The applicant cross-examined Ms. Praveen M Devathod by asking four questions, while he declined to cross- examine Ms Nafeesa. The Inquiry Officer put a note that opportunity of cross-examination was given but the charged official declined to cross-examine.
65. On 12.02.2021, the witnesses Sri. Shrinivas Gunaga and Sri. K Venkatesh were examined. The applicant cross-examined Sri K. Venkatesh but he declined to cross-examine Sri Shrinivas Gunaga. On 19.02.2021, witness Shri Namdev Badiger was examined and the applicant cross-examined the witness by asking two questions. Another witness Shri Nityanand Kudalkar was also examined and on the same date, the opportunity to cross-examine was offered to the applicant but he declined to cross-examine the witness.
66. On 05.03.2021, the witness Shri M K Basanagoudra was examined and the applicant cross-examined the witness by asking two questions. Another witness Shri Chandrakant Gadiyar was also examined and the applicant cross-examined the witness by asking four questions. On 19.03.2021, witness Mr. M Veeramalai mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 67 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE was examined and the applicant also cross-examined the aforesaid witness and the aforesaid statement was continued on the next date on 22.03.2021 and second opportunity of cross-examination of the aforesaid witness was also availed by the witness.
67. On 28.06.2021, the witness Shri Luther Purushotham was examined and the applicant also cross-examined the witness. On 29.07.2021, the witness Shri Andrew Prabhu was examined who was related to the Preliminary Inquiry. Opportunity to cross- examine was also given to the applicant but he declined to cross- examine the witness.
68. Therefore, it appears from the entire record of the aforesaid inquiry that the applicant was offered the opportunity of cross-examination of each and every witness. He used the aforesaid opportunity for some witnesses and he did not cross- examine the other witnesses. It was the sweet will of the applicant. If the applicant wanted to cross-examine any witness then it is found that proper opportunity was given to him. If he did not want to avail the aforesaid opportunity then he cannot say that any violation of the rules has been done. It appears from the entire proceedings that sufficient opportunities of cross-examination mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 68 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE were provided and the applicant used the aforesaid opportunity for some witnesses.
69. This Tribunal has no power to re-appreciate the evidence recorded during the departmental inquiry. It is submitted by the applicant counsel that the cross-examination was not referred in the inquiry report. The inquiry report has been prepared upon the entire statements of witnesses. It is not required to the official that each and every question of cross-examination should be referred in the inquiry report. The entire statement of witnesses is required to be taken into consideration and the substantive part of evidence gathered from the examination and cross-examination may be referred and that is sufficient.
70. The report of Inquiry Officer (Annexure - A2) runs about 20 pages. It appears from the aforesaid inquiry report that substantive evidence has been considered. The witness numbers are also referred in the inquiry report. Thereafter, in the impugned order Annexure - A5 shows that the disciplinary authority considered the aforesaid entire report.
71. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the appellate authority did not apply their mind and only confirmed the report of the disciplinary authority. He submitted that the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 69 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE appellate authority did not refer any evidence. Therefore, the aforesaid rejection of appeal cannot be accepted.
72. In the case of Divl. Forest Officer v. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 788 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 242 the court said that it is also the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent. A similar duty is cast on the revisional authority being the highest authority in the Department. But the court again said in para 20 that:-
"20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum."
73. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid pronouncement, it was not accepted to the appellate authority to refer the entire evidence again. The appellate authority passed the order Annexure - A7 in which the submission of the applicant and the comments of disciplinary authority are also considered. In view of this Tribunal, the aforesaid appellate authority order is sufficient.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 70 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
74. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution in the departmental inquiry included 9 other witnesses without informing the applicant, but this argument cannot be accepted. As per record, the letter dated 29.12.2020 was submitted to the Inquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer in which he requested to include some more witnesses. The names of all the witnesses along with their posts were also mentioned in the aforesaid letter. The written receipt given by the applicant is also found. It appears that on 27.01.2021, the applicant issued the receipt of three letters given by Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. At serial no.3, the letter dated 29.12.2020 is also mentioned. Therefore, the aforesaid argument has no any force.
75. Therefore, it appears from the entire records that the charges framed against the applicant were not vague charges. Clear charge sheet was issued and proper inquiry was conducted. Any defect is not found in conducting of the inquiry. Sufficient opportunities were given to the applicant. The decision has been taken upon the basis of sufficient evidence and proper punishment has been awarded to the applicant. Opportunity was available to the applicant but he did not cross-examine some of the witnesses. On the other side, he also admitted the guilt by submitting two mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2025.03.11 12:52:16+05'30' 71 OA.No.170/00346/2023/CAT/BANGALORE letters in his own handwriting. He also admitted his guilt in his statement in the Preliminary Inquiry. In the main inquiry, the witnesses proved the act of the applicant. It is found that the applicant himself was indulged in the aforesaid illegal activities.
76. Therefore, in view of this Tribunal, no any sufficient reason is found to interfere in the impugned orders and the punishment given to the applicant. Looking to the act of the applicant, proper punishment has been awarded.
77. Therefore, this OA having no any force, hence, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2025.03.11
12:52:16+05'30'