Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
A R Naik vs M/O Defence on 30 January, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00070/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 08.12.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 30.01.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
A.R. Naik
S/o Late Rudrappa Naik,
Aged about 62 years
Retd. Addl. Defence Estate Officer,
R/o House No. MIG-6, KHB Colony,
Kuvempunagar, Hanuman Nagar,
Hindulaga, Belagavi - 591 108. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri N.G. Phadke)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
By its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director General,
Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Raksha Sampada Bhawan,
Ulaan Baatar Marg,
Delhi Cantt. - 110 010. ...Respondents
(By Shri Sayed S Kazi, Addl. Central Government
Standing Counsel)
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2026.01.30
15:32:36+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed on 16.02.2023 for quashment of the punishment order Annexure - A14 dated 22.03.2018 and rejection of appeal order Annexure - A17 dated 24.01.2022.
The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-
"i) Quash the order No. 24/773/VIG/DE/II dated 22.03.2018 passed by the II-Respondent at Annexure:
A-14 with all the consequential benefits; and,
ii) Quash the order No. 13019/9/2018-D(vig) dated 24.01.2022 at Annexure: A-17 passed by the I-
Respondent with all the consequential benefits; and,
iii) Grant such relief(s) to the Applicant as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. It is not disputed that the applicant was appointed on probation as CEO of Shahjahanpur Cantt Board with effect from 06.01.2009. He was also holding the additional charge of Fatehgarh Cantt. The applicant has been superannuated on 31.05.2021 from the post of Additional Defence Estate Officer.
3. A charge memo (Annexure - A1) was issued on 20.09.2013 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The applicant mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE submitted the reply to the charge sheet (Annexure - A2) dated 07.10.2013. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer and the Presentation Officer were appointed and the inquiry was conducted. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report Annexure - A11 dated 13.04.2017. The Inquiry report was communicated to the applicant and he filed the reply. Thereafter, the penalty order (Annexure - A14) was issued on 22.03.2018 and the following punishment was awarded:-
"10. NOW ACCORDINGLY, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 15(6) of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority has come to a conclusion that justice would be met by imposing the penalty of "Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages for one year with further direction that he will not earn any increment during the period of such reduction. However, considering the charge of lack of integrity being not conclusively established from the records of Inquiry, the aforesaid reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay on expiry of such period"
with immediate effect on Shri A.R. Naik, ex-CEO, Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur. It is further directed that a relevant entry in the service records of Shri A.R. Naik, ex-CEO, Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur be made."
4. The applicant preferred the appeal (Annexure - A15) dated 30.04.2018 to the Union of India and the aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 24.01.2022 vide Annexure - A17.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The applicant challenged the aforesaid punishment order and the appellate order. It is submitted that mind was not applied.
The applicant was a new appointee having no any experience.
The applicant having no any role in the irregularities pointed out by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the punishment is liable to be set aside.
6. It will be proper to mention here that the OA runs about 153 pages but it appears that most of the material mentioned in the OA, was not relevant to mention as pleadings. The applicant mentioned the portion of the evidence of witnesses, etc., which was not necessary in the pleadings. With the help of evidence, the applicant tried to convince that he acted upon the advice given by the senior employee of the department who was subordinate to the applicant.
7. The respondents opposed the aforesaid OA by filing the reply on 05.07.2023. It is submitted by the respondents that proper opportunity of hearing was provided. The evidence was recorded in the presence of the applicant and the opportunity of cross-examination was also provided. The applicant himself examined one defence witness. Inquiry Officer considered the entire evidence in the light of departmental documents and found the charges are proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE also applied his mind and gave the opportunity to the applicant for filing the written version about the inquiry report. The applicant availed the aforesaid opportunity. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed. In the appeal, the matter was again considered and no substance was found. Therefore, the appeal was also dismissed.
8. Whether the penalty order (Annexure - A14) and the appellate order (Annexure - A17) are liable to be set aside?
9. Powers of Court in disciplinary proceedings have been considered and define by Supreme Court in various Judgments.
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 discussed 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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............"
10. 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."
11. 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
12. 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 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 vitiates 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. .......".
13. 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 177 = 1989 SCC (L&S) 303 = 1989 SCC OnLine SC 125 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 imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority."
14. 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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) 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."
15. 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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."
16. In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 = 1999 SCC (L&S) 405 = 1999 SCC 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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."
17. 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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.
18. 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:-
"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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144])"
19. 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. 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;
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(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;
(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."
20. In the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 = (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 4, 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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 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 ."
21. 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.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
22. 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".
23. Recently in the case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, (2023) 14 SCC 391 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064 = 2023 INSC 766 = 2023[11] Scale 530 [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 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.''
24. 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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] . 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 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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] ."
25. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617 = 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."
26. In the case of The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr., AIR 2023 SC 2388 = AIROnline 2023 SC [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 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00070/2023/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"
27. Therefore, it is the established law that in the departmental inquiry cases, the Court having the limited powers.
The Court cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence and cannot interfere by imposing his own view upon the evidence. If prima facie any violation of natural justice is found, then the Court may interfere. Keeping in mind the law in this regard, now we shall examine the present case.
28. The following charge was framed against the applicant in the charge sheet dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure - A1):-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "Article of Charge Framed against Shri A R Naik, Ex-CEO, Cantonment Board, Shahhahanpur Cantt ARTICLE Shri AR Naik, while working as Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur with effect from 06-01-2009 to 20-06-2011 committed grave misconduct and showed lack of integrity in the matter of recruitment/appointment of three junior clerks in Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur and caused wrongful gain to private persons.
2. The above facts of omission and commission amount to grave misconduct and thereby Sh AR Naik exhibited lack of devotion to duty, lack of absolute integrity and behaviour unbecoming of an officer and contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
29. Along with the charge sheet, the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct is also relevant in which the details are mentioned. It will be useful to refer the aforesaid Imputation Statement as it is:-
"STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE AGAINST SHRI AR NAIK, EX-CEO.
CANTONMENT BOARD, SHAHJAHANPUR CANTT Sh AR Naik while working as Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Bareilly with effect from 06-01-2009 to 20-06-2011 committed grave misconduct and showed lack of integrity in the matter of of recruitment of three junior clerks. Shri Naik was the appointing authority for junior clerks.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
2. Sh AR Naik, as CEO, Shahjahanpur Cantt Board submitted a proposal vide letter No 15/Estt./Jr. Clerk/2009/202 dated 14-9-09 to the Dte DE, Central Command. Lucknow to accord permission to fill one vacancy of Jr Clerk under A-2 Budget Head. Sh-Naik mentioned in the saider that sanction for filling up post of 02 Junior Clerks had already been received from the Dte DE. Defence Estates, Central Command, Lucknow vide letter No 9898/Vol-XII/LC-6 In response, the Directorate, dated 15-10-09 advised Sh Naik that two posts of Junior Clerks may be filled up and that the third post of Junior Clerk may be considered in due course, with due justification. Despite specifie- instructions of Die DE Central Command, Sh Naik issued revised notification of Vacancies vide corrigendum dated 17-23 Oct 2009 for two permanent clerks and one temporary clerk. The corrigendum was issued to the earlier advertisement dated 12-18 Sep 2009, wherein he had advertised only for one permanent and one temporary clerk.
3. During the recruitment process Sh Naik committed the following omissions and commissions:-
(i) The advertisement dated 12-18 Sept 2009 or the prescribed application form did not mention about submission of certificates in proof of Date of Birth/Caste/category certificate.
(ii) The advertisement stated that Application form was to be issued by the Board to those candidates who deposit Rs 200/- in cash at Cantt Board office or send a Demand Draft of Rs 200/- in favour of Chief, Executive Officer, but applications were accepted from an applicant, Sh Sumit Yadav which was on a form provided by some outside agency and from another applicant, Ms Shilpi Keshri, which was on plain paper.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) The qualification prescribed for the post of Jr Clerk is "Intermediate. Eng/ Hindi typing" as per Dte DE, Central Command letter No 34238/LKO/90/LC6 dated 06-04-1990. The advertisement dated 12-18 Sept 09 also mentioned that the desirable qualification for Junior Clerk would be 'English & Hindi Typing speed 30 words/ minute' and that 'preference would be given to candidates having good knowledge of computer typing in English and Hindi. Possession of a well- defined skill viz Eng/ Hindi typing at a speed of 30 works/ minute was a job requirement. However no typing test was conducted for filling up the vacancies of Jr Clerks.
(iv) No time limit was indicated on the question paper for the written examination conducted by the Board for the said recruitment.
(v) In the Written examination, for the objective questions, the answer was to be ticked on the quasion paper itself but two candidates, Ms Shilpi Keshri and Shri Sumit Yadav, were allowed to give their answers on plain paper, instead of indicating their answers on the objective type question/answer sheet. These answer sheets, though in violation of Instructions, were evaluated.
(vi) Shri Manish Majumdar, one of the candidates, was permitted to use whitener (correction fluid) in his answer sheet.
(vii) The written test and interview were given equal weightage of 100 marks each which is neither appropriate nor equitable. This was particularly so because in the 100 marks kept for interview, parameters allocating the said 100 marks are not available on record.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(viii) In the answer sheet of Sh Manish Majumdar, answer to Question-No.10 was awarded 06 marks whereas the question carried a maximum of 05 marks.
(ix) Fourteen candidates were issued letters on 3-4- 2010 asking them to appear in the interview on 27-4- 2010 whereas one candidate namely Shri Sumit Yadav was issued the letter on 26-4-2010, i.e. one day before the scheduled date of interview, to be conducted on 27-04-2010.
(x) Sh Sumit Yadav, an OBC candidate, was appointed against a General category vacancy.
(xi) The three candidates namely Ms Shilpi Keshri, Sh Sumit Yadav and Sh Manish Majumdar in whose case the omissions and commissions have been observed, were, therefore, irregularly recruited/ appointed by Sh Naik.
4. As appointing authority, Shri A R Naik acted irresponsibly in the whole process. Sh Naik by the above acts of omissions and commission leading to irregular appointment exhibited lack of devotion to duty, lack of absolute integrity and conduct unbecoming of an officer and has therefore, contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964."
30. Along with the charge sheet, the documents stated in Annexure - III of the charge sheet were also provided to the applicant. List of witnesses was also given to the applicant.
Thereafter, the applicant submitted his reply dated 07.10.2013 (Annexure - A2).
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
31. It appears from the Inquiry report and the inquiry proceedings that the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of MPR Tripathi (PW1), PNB Sarma (PW2), Mukesh Rastogi (PW3), Sushil Kumar (PW4) and the applicant himself examined the Defence Witness Awadesh Kumar Dixit. The opportunity to cross-examine was duly provided. The prosecution marked 21 documents, defence also marked 31 documents and the Inquiry Officer himself marked 18 documents. The applicant requested one file for examination which was also provided by the PO and this fact is mentioned in para 7 of the Inquiry report. After recording of the evidence, the opportunity to present the written brief was also provided.
32. The Inquiry Officer in para 18 of his report mentioned the "points for consideration" as per imputation statements.
Thereafter, each and every point has been discussed in detail. In the discussion, the Inquiry Officer mentioned the version of prosecution and defence both and thereafter gave the finding upon each allegation. Three allegations are not found proved.
Therefore, for better appreciation, it will be useful to refer the aforesaid entire finding stated in para 20 to 31 as it is except those details related to the unproved charges:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "20. 1) In para-2 of Annexure-2, it is alleged that the CO proceeded to advertise for third post of Junior Clerk, whereas the Dte of Defence Estates, Central Command sanctioned filling up of a posts of Juntor Clerks and advised that the third post of Junior Clerk may be considered in due course.
Prosecution
(a) According to the prosecution, the CO published an advertisement titled Vacancies in Cantonment Board Shahjahanpur in Employment News dated 12-18 Sept. 2009 and Rojgar Samachar. The advertisement indicated two vacancies of Junior Clerks (Permanent-1 and Temporary-1). Both posts were of General Category. Besides essential qualification of Intermediate, the desirable qualification indicated included English and Hindi typing with speed of 30 words per minute. In remarks column, it was shown that preference will be given to candidates having good knowledge of Computer typing in English and Hindi. The advertisement indicated that the candidates have to deposit Rs. 200/- in cash in Cantonment Board office by DD in favour of CEO Shahjahanpur before 15th Oct, 2009 following which the Board will supply the application form. The candidates were required to send their application form duly completed on or before 31 Oct 2009 alongwith passport size photograph duly attested by Gazetted Officer and one large size envelope duly stamped.
(b) The prosecution charge against the CO is that he proceeded to take steps to fill up third post of Junior Clerk for which the CO published a corrigendum dated Oct 17-23, 2009 in the same newspapers. The corrigendum stated that against the number of posts of two Junior Clerks, the number of Junior Clerks posts should be read as three (Permanent -2 and Temporary- 1; Category-General two and OBC one).
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(c) The PO submitted that the Dte of Defence Estates, Central Command vide letter No. 9898/Vol-XII/LC6 dated 15th Oct, 2009 clearly advised the CO to fill up only two posts of Junior Clerks and regarding third vacancy it was informed that the Dte "may consider the matter in due course but not now". Despite these clear instructions of the Dte, the CO published a corrigendum to the earlier advertisement notifying the third vacancy of Junior Clerk. Regarding this the prosecution witnesses namely Shri Sushil Kumar, Ex- Office Superintendant, (PW-4) Shri PNB Sarma (PW-
2), stated that the CO published the corrigendum on his own without waiting for sanction of Dte. The prosecution submitted relevant documents in support of the allegations.
Defence
(d) On the other hand, the CO submitted that since the requisite clarifications were furnished by the Cantonment Board vide letter No. 15/Estt/Ty/Appt/458 dated 20th May, 2010, the Dte, DE, Central Command vide letter No. 9898/LC6/Z dated 9th August, 2010 accorded sanction for temporary creation of one post of Junior Clerk under Head F-9 Military Conservancy for a period of one year with effect from 1 March, 2010 to 28th Feb, 2011. The CO brought out in questions to witnesses that he had actually sought permission for filling up three posts at the time of issuing advertisement. In the cross examination, Shri Sushil Kumar, Ex-OS (PW-4) agreed that he has suggested to the CEO (CO) to proceed with advertisement for additional third post of Junior Clerk. The CO, therefore, affirms that he had filled up the third Post in accordance with the sanction issued by the Dte and pleaded that the charge is not established.
Findings:
The CO sent a proposal vide letter No. 15/Estt/Jr. Clerk/2009/202 dated 14th Sept, 2009 to PD, DE, CC mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 31 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE stating that one post of Jr. Clerk fell vacant in A-2 head in August, 2009 and requested for permission to fill up this latest third vacancy of Jr. Clerk. He had mentioned in this letter that he had invited applications for three posts. Actually, initially only two posts were advertised i.e. September 2009. It is clear that the CO published the corrigendum for third post of Junior Clerk within one month of the initial advertisement i.e. in Oct, 2009 whereas the sanction for third post was issued by the Dte in Oct, 2010. The CO completed the recruitment to the third post alongwith two posts sanctioned and sought sanction of the Dte for the third post on the ground that there was heavy workload and that the third post was necessary. The CO contends that it was a practice in Shahjahanpur Cantonment Board to seek sanction for temporary post of Junior Clerk under Military Conservancy every year. However, this cannot be accepted since he had already notified the temporary post in Employment News dated September 12-16, 2009 based on earlier sanction. The Dte vide their letter dated 15th Oct, 2009 did not accept the request for the third post. In the original advertisement, the CO had already declared that one of the two posts of Junior Clerks is a temporary post. However, the corrigendum for third post was published on October 17-23, 2009 in Employment News and Rozgar Samachar. Therefore, he could not have asked for temporary post again in his letter dated 20th May, 2010. The facts mentioned in para-2 of Annexure of charge memo are correct and CO's defence is unfounded.
21.(ii) .....
22. iii) The advertisement stated that Application form was to be issued by the Board to those candidates who deposit Rs. 200/- in cash at Cantt Board office or send a Demand Draft of Rs. 200/- in favour of Chief Executive Officer, but applications were accepted mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 32 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE from an applicant, Shri Sumit Yadav, which was on a form-provided by some outside agency and from another applicant, Ms Shilpi Keshri, which was on plain paper.
Prosecution
(a) Here the prosecution submitted that the selected candidate Shri Manish Majumdar submitted his application not on the form issued by the Board but on a format which was supplied by an outside agency. A sample copy of the application is at ID-12. Similarly, prosecution submitted that another selected candidate Ms. Shilpi Keshri submitted her application on a plain paper (P-13). PW-1 PW-2 & PW-4 have confirmed these facts in their examination in chief. The prosecution pointed out that the CO himself has admitted in his cross examination of PW-2 & PW-1 that about 70 candidates had applied in format other than the one supplied by Cantonment Board office. According to the prosecution, it was a violation of the condition mentioned in the recruitment notification.
Defence
(b) The CO submitted that the selected candidates Shri Sumit Yadav, Ms. Shilpi Keshri deposited prescribed fee of Rs. 200/- each with the Cantonment Board and submitted the applications in accordance with the proforma prescribed by the Board. The CO in his written brief mentioned on page -4 that as many as 70 candidates including Shri Sumit Yadav and Ms Shilpi Keshri had applied either on plain paper or on other formats. He submitted that all these applications were considered by the Board and according to him there is no misconduct in this respect.
(c) Findings: The advertisement issued by the Board indicated that the Board will supply the application format and all the candidates are required to send their application form before the last date i.e. 31 Oct, 2009.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 33 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The CO justified not rejecting the applications which were received either on plain paper or on format of external agencies on the ground of having more candidates for a healthy competition and to give opportunity to all and to achieve transparency. This action was to give justice to all and in good faith. Please see CO's reply dated 13th March, 2017 ID-11 of Inquiry Folder. The application form supplied by the Board had 14 columns and a certificates column table for showing educational qualification, percentage of marks etc. There is also an undertaking at the bottom of the form, that the candidate is affirming to the correctness of the details furnishing in the format and that he / she will abide by orders of the competent authority, if found false. Such an undertaking is not found in the application of selected candidates Shri Manish Majumdar and Ms Shilpi Keshri. It is however seen that the application form submitted by Shri Sumit Yadav P-12 is on the application format supplied by the Board. To that extent of the charge that the application of Shri Sumit Yadav, was supplied by some outside agency is incorrect. Actually another selected candidate's application i.e. of Shri Manish Majumdar is on a format given by external agency. Please see ID-13. It is not supplied by the Board. Generally applications which are in wrong format are rejected straight away being a basic document of recruitment. In fact, perusal of the applications of Ms Shilpi Keshri does not even include Demand draft number. There is no undertaking in forms of Ms Shilpi and Shri Majumdar. The CO did not exercise diligence in ensuring a thorough security of applications. I find the allegation of entertaining applications not supplied by the Board as proved.
23. iv) The qualification prescribed for the post of Jr. Clerk is "Intermediate, Eng/ Hindi typing" as per Dte DE, Central Command letter No. 34238/LKO/90/LC6 dated 06-04-1990. The advertisement dated 12-18 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 34 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Sept, 2009 also mentioned that the desirable qualification for Junior Clerk would be English & Hindi Typing speed 30 words per minute' and that 'preference would be given to candidates having good knowledge of computer typing in English and Hindi'. Possession of a well-defined skill viz Eng/ Hindi typing at a speed of 30 words/minute was a job requirement. However, no typing test was conducted for filling up the vacancies of Junior Clerks.
Prosecution
(a) The prosecution charged the CO for not holding English / Hindi Typing test, although the same was communicated in the recruitment notice. To prove this point, the PO cited the document at P-11 which is HQrs Central Command, Lucknow letter No. 34238/LKO/90/LC6 dated 6th April, 1990 mentioning the qualification for Junior Clerk as Intermediate alongwith knowledge of English / Hindi typing. Besides this, the recruitment notice published by the Cantonment Board mentioned the desirable qualification as "English & Hindi typing speed 30 wpm". However, prosecution brought out that as per evidence no typing test was conducted for filling up the vacancies. Shri Sushil Kumar PW-4, Shri MPR Tripathi, PW-1, Shri PNB Sarma, PW-2 during their examination stated that no typing test was conducted. The Department alleged that the CO has not been able to give any justification for not conducting typing test despite being an, essential requirement. Test on PPT was not prescribed in the advertisement and neither a desirable qualification and hence, the CO committed a mistake.
Defence
(b) The CO in his defence pointed out that the Dte of Defence Estates, Central Command letter dated 6th April, 1990 was not brought on record during the course of inquiry and therefore it cannot be mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 35 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE established. He submitted that this letter is not mentioned as one of the prosecution documents, as list of documents shown in the Annexure-3 of charge memo. The CO submitted that the advertisement notice mentioned about giving preference to: candidates having good knowledge of computer typing in English & Hindi. Through cross examination of Shil Sushil Kumar, ex-OS, he concluded that the test on making PPT involved test of typing skills. Accordingly, selection process included test of computer typing knowledge of shortlisted candidates by the Interview Board headed by Col. Rao, nominated Member and comprising 4 other elected members of the Cantonment, Board namely Shri Shri Gajendra Gangawar, Shri Avdhesh Kumar, Dixit, Shri Rajpal, Smt. Savita Singh. The Interview Board set up as per the instructions of PCB Shahjahanpur.and observed on the skill test of PPT which is a basic requirement in the present day. The Interview Committee, therefore, selected suitable candidates having good knowledge of computer soft skills and the appointments were made based on the Committee's recommendations. The CO submitted that the imputation of misconduct as mentioned at para-3 (li) is without any substance.
(c) Findings: -
Typing tests contain giving few paragraphs and ask for typing in a given time. The number of words correctly typed give the speed based on which marks are awarded. It is seen from the documents and alad observed from the inquiry proceedings that no typing test in English or Hindi was conducted before the appointments were made for Junior Clerks. The Interview Board, however, conducted a test to assess skills of PPT as claimed by the CO and submitted proof of the PPT. The CO requested for true copies of PPT as his defence documents. Accordingly, these were taken on record and placed as defence documents which can be seen in the Defence documents folder. Further, the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 36 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE CO submitted mark sheets of different members of the interview Board which shows the assessments made by different Interview Board Members for computer knowledge of typing. These documents are placed at defence document Nos. D-20 to D-29 in Defence documents folder.
Perusal of these documents shows that the Interview Board was supplied with the marks obtained by the shortlisted 15 candidates and the marks awarded by each interview board member for computer knowledge / typing. Ideally the written test marks should not have been made available to the Interview Board to prevent bias. The typing documents of shortlisted candidates is a table comprising 05 columns and 05 rows containing some technical data. Though it is called a PPT, dit involves typing knowledge. But objective assessment of typing skill is not done here unlike a standard typing test. The maximum marks for skill test and interview was put at 20 for each member of the Interview Board. However, it is not clear how many of 20 are for typing test and as to how interview board dovetailed the marks obtained in the skill test of English / Hindi typing in the overall marks of interview. The total marks of 100 are assigned for the interview is a sum of 20 marks of 5 interview Board Members as understood from the marking sheets. There is no evidence of breakup of various parameters adopted by the Interview Board for scrutinizing the typing skills. The marks do not indicate the typing speed. There is also no proof of holding the skill test to check Hindi typing ability although it was mentioned in the recruitment notice as one of the desirable qualification.
It is thus, evident that the CO did not adhere to the recruitment notice by conducting a test of assessing the speed of typing in Hindi and English. It is also not proved as to how much time was given to the candidates to complete the typing test. Therefore, there mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 37 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE is no doubt that CO failed to conduct test in Hindi / English typing as per the recruitment notice in a systematic manner. It was a haphazard process with no systematic or orderly method. Lot of adhocism was observed. As there are omissions and commissions in the process, there was a possibility of manipulation of selection because cleat criteria were not adopted. This element of charge is held proved.
24. v) No time limit was indicated on the question paper for the written examination conducted by the Board for the said recruitment.
Prosecution
(a) Regarding this charge, the prosecution submitted that CO failed to mention the time limit for answering the question paper given by the Board. The prosecution pointed out that this is proved by the prosecution documents No. P-14, P-15 & P-16 which is a question paper wherein there is no mention time. The prosecution witness PW-2 has also confirmed the fact of absence of time limit indication on the question paper. The prosecution held that even though the oral announcement may have been made by the CO at the time of the commencement of the writing test, non- indication of time limit cannot be excused. According to the prosecution, absence of time limit on the question paper leaves scope for manipulation and favour to some candidates. Further, the prosecution believes that one of the selected candidates, Ms Shilpi Keshri may have been given additional time for completing the question paper because she wrote entire question paper in long hand in a separate answer sheet rather than answering objective questions in the question paper itself. This point is also mentioned by PW-2 about the possibility of such situation.
Defence
(b) The CO in his defence submitted that the question paper for, the written examination was prepared by the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 38 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE President of the Cantonment Board. The CO submitted that he was not associated at any stage with preparation of the question paper. He collected the question paper from PCB in a sealed envelope and the same was shown to staff before getting copies made in a photocopy shop. He admitted that after the question paper was distributed in the examination hall, when some candidates complained about no mention of time limit, he announced the time limit of maximum one hour. The CQ referred to the deposition of Shri Sushil Kumar PW-4 in which he agreed that the announcement of time was actually made by the CO. The CO defended that the time limit of one hour was adequate. Please see ID-11. The CO submitted that this element of the charge is not established since he did not set the paper.
(c) Findings:
From the documents attached with the charge memo, it is absolutely clear that there is no indication of maximum time for answering the question paper. However, it is a fact that the CO made announcement about time limit of one hour at the commencement of the examination, In my questions to the CO, he admitted through a written reply dated 13th March, 2017, ID-11 that he discussed with PCB that the question paper should be set by a third agency and the PCB offered to get set the question paper at his level. The CO further admitted that he could not be held responsible for this lapse as the question paper was prepared by the PCB and that he was not liable for this omission. The CO has also agreed that there is no indication of the maximum time limit on the question paper. In view of this admission, the charge is held proved.
25. vi) In the written examination, for the objective questions, the answer was to be ticked on the question paper itself but two candidates, Ms. Shilpi Keshrt and mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 39 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Shri Sumit Yadav, were allowed to give their answers on plain paper, instead of indicating their answers on the objective type question/ answer sheet. These answer sheets, though in violation of instructions, were evaluated.
Prosecution
(a) The prosecution alleged that two selected candidates Ms Shilpi Keshri and Shri Sumit Yadav were allowed to give their answers on plain paper instead of indicating their answers on objective type question & answer sheets. These are proved by P-14 to P-16 which are the answers sheets of Shri Sumit Yadav and Ms Shilpi Keshri respectively. These documents are confirmed by PW-1 and PW-2 in the examination in chief by the PO. In examination of Shri PNB Sarma, PW-2 it was brought out that a prepared answer sheet to multiple choice questions was attached. The prosecution alleged that the answers were written leisurely and some extra time was given to her because she even wrote questions besides the answers. The prosecution also claimed that the fact of using whitener (correction fluid) in the sheets of Shri Manish Majumdar is proved by PW-1 in his deposition.
Defence
(b) The CO in his defence stated that the bundles of written examination answer sheets alongwith all loose papers were sealed by the Headmaster and the staff on duty after the conclusion of the exam and thereafter bundles of sealed pockets were handed over to his PCB. He explained that the PCB brought the answer sheets duly evaluated and briefed the Board about it. The CO submitted that PW-4 in his cross examination admitted to that fact of PCB bringing evaluated answer sheets to the Board. He also claimed, that his witness Shri Avdhesh Kumar Dixit, Elected Member of Cantonment Board has also given a statement affirming this fact. The CO claimed that he was not associated with the evaluation and therefore he was no mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 40 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE way involved with the allegations mentioned in para-3 to 5 of Annexure-2 of charge memo. He further submitted that the answer sheets were evaluated by the Army personnel, namely Subedar Nagendra Singh JC- 8020774H, Sub. M. M. Varma JC-802777W, Head Hav, P. K. Nair No. 9511953 and another Havaldar No. 9513132 (napne not clear). The CO said that the process of evaluation was aimed at ensuring objectivity and transparency. In view of these submissions, the CO submitted that this imputation of misconduct is not established against him.
(c) Findings:
The question paper was in 2 parts: In Section-A which is the first part contains objective questions and Psecond pectin Section-B long answer questions. The second part (B) contained questions 8 to 10 which required long answers. There is however no instruction in the question paper where the candidate should write the answers for this Section (B): It is clear from the documents that the selected candidates Ms Shilpi Keshri and Shri Sumit Yadav used blank sheets to write the answers of multiple choice questions of Section-A of question paper while Shri Sumit Yadav answered the objective questions in the question paper itself besides using additional blank sheets to again write the anawera of multiple questions P-14, P-15 & P-16. The evaluator even commented on this fact. He, however, used additional answer sheets to write answers of writing own letter writing, paragraph writing etc. which cannot be avoided.
In respect of Ms Shilpi Keshri, she did not at all answer multiple choice questions in the question paper in Section A and instead used blank sheets for writing answers (P-15). In this, she has not only written the answer to the questions but even repeated the questions in long hand. The CO in a written answers to questions of IO could not offer any reason why Ms Shilpi Kesari mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 41 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE chose to write the objective questions in full. She has secured almost full marks against multiple choice questions but scored very poorly against descriptive questions in Section B. A study of the answer sheets of Ms Shilpi Keshri reveals that out of total marks of 20 under Section B, she has got only 05 marks whereas she has got 76 out of 80 marks for Section A (multiple choice). Her descriptive answers under section B therefore do not corroborate her true abilities. For example, for question No. 10 on letter writing to younger brother asking him to join Army, she wrote four sentences. Her writing in the letter writing explains her poor English knowledge skill and also general knowledge. One sentence she wrote "Bhaiya as you aware that I am appeared in SSB exam CDS written exam" shows her level of English is very poor. It is hard to believe that she could have given almost 100 per cent accurate answers to the objective questions. There appears to be a clear malpractice of leaking the question paper enabling the candidate to write all correct answers of Section A in which she scored 76 out of 80 marks. Moreover, in sixty minutes, it is not possible to write correct answers to multiple choice questions in long hand rather than tick the answers in the question paper itself.
It is very clear that the question paper was compromised for which the CO is claiming to be ignorant. The CO has clearly admitted that the question paper was set by the PCB and it was evaluated by 4 JCO level Army personnel. It is not clear as to who exactly compromised the question paper. The charges against the CO is that he has permitted this kind of situation to arise where he being the appointing authority failed to exercise any kind of control over recruitment process cannot be dismissed. The CO therefore failed in his duties and did not ensure proper conduct of the examination and the evaluation. Therefore the CO cannot be given any mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 42 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE benefit of doubt on the basis of his arguments of not being associated with the evaluation of question paper. He should have checked the answer sheets before proceeding with the second step of interview and noticed the lapses so that the further steps could have been put on hold. Hence the charge is proved.
26 vii)....
27. viii) The written test and interview were given equal weightage of 100 marks each which is neither appropriate nor equitable. This was particularly so because in the 100 marks kept for interview, parameters allocating the sald 100 marks are not available on record.
Prosecution
(a) The prosecution alleged that the CO being appointing authority did not exercise due care in deciding the weightage to be given to interview. The prosecution charged that there is no basis for keeping 100 marks for interview thus providing scope for manipulation and favourism. The PO in cross examination of elected member Shri Dixit brought out that the entire process of recruitment was directed by PCB including allocating 100 marks for interview. Shri Dixit stated that each member of Interview Board were given 20 marks and the total of the same were the interview marks. The recorded evidence is available in the form of P-20 which is final result sheet of the candidates which shows 100 marks cach for written test and interview. Further, the prosecution argued that by informing the Dte about the scheme of examination i.e. 100 marks each for written test and interview does not absolve the CO of giving undue weightage for interview.
The prosecution did not attach any importance to CO's contention that the Department has not circulated any instructions on allotment of marks in recruitment. It mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 43 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE was held that the CO as appointing authority should have adopted a correct method to provide fair and reasonable criteria in the recruitment. He should have held the exam in a free and fair manner, leaving no scope for manipulation. It is prosecution charge that giving of 100 marks for interview helped some candidates who had not got good marks in the written test. The example of Shri Manish Majumjar is given. He secured only 56 marks in written examination but was, awarded 72 marks for interview, thus helping him to get selected. Similarly, Ms Shilpi Keshri was also awarded very high marks of 73 in the interview.
Defence
(b) The CO explained that there were 05 members in the interview Board comprising an Army officer as nominee of Stn Commander and 4 elected members. The CO declared that he was not at all associated in conduct of the interview and actual award of marks to candidates. The interview Board Members Col. H. R. R. Rao, Adm Commandant and nominated member, Shri Gajendra Gangawar, Shri Avdhesh Kumar Dixit, Shri Rajpal, Smt. Savita Singh elected members. The Interview Board awarded marks after seeing computer knowledge / typing skills of the candidates and their personalities. He indicated that the fact of constitution of Interview Board and the marks allotted to interview was informed to the Dte in the Board's letter No. 15/Estt/Appt/460 dated 21st May, 2010 in which he asked for sanction of 03 posts of Junior Clerks. In his defence, he has sought the evidence given by the elected member Shri Avdhesh Kumar Dixit one of the elected member in interview Board during his examination and cross examination. According to him this point of article of charge is not established against him.
(c) Findings:
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 44 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The CO in my written questions replied on 13th March, 2017 that the PCB constituted the Interview Board panel and he was riot made a member of the panel. The CO submitted that the chairman of the Interview Board decided on marks and it was agreed by other members. It is evident that the recruitment was made by providing 100 marks each for written test and interview. On perusal of the final result of the interviewed candidates shows that the 02 selected candidates namely Shri Manish Majumdar and Ms Shilpi Keshri were awarded 72 and 73 marks respectively in the interview. There is no document to show if the interview Board allocated any criteria and weightage of marks for different parameters. The interview board members have awarded marks out of 20 marks as seen in the assessment sheets of each Interview Board Member. It is not clear, as to how the interview board arrived at the total interview marks showing totals of marks given by each member to 15 candidates was not shown in the result sheet. A statement produced. It is also not forthcoming from the documents submitted by the prosecution and the CO as to how the interview marks were integrated with the marks secured in the computer/typing test.
In conclusion it appears that the entire process of interview comprising typing test was held in a haphazard manner without any application of mind. It is a common practice in the selection of candidates in public bodies that higher weightage is given to written examination and weightage not exceeding 20 to 25 per cent is allocated for interview and skill test. The previous recruitments held in Shahjahanpur should have been seen by the CO before allowing the equal weightage for written test and interview. Even the interview Board headed by the Army officer should have considered this point and should not have given such overwhelming weightage to the interview. Higher weightage to interview is specially avoided to prevent mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 45 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE subjectivity and favouritism to any candidates. The CO himself would have experienced in his career about the general scheme of recruitment in Cantonment Boards and elsewhere.
Further the CO by not being a part of the interview Board has abdicated his responsibility and surrendering his authority to the interview Board. He not only failed to give a direction to the recruitment process but also chosen to remain a spectator to the adhoc method and procedures adopted for the recruitment. The charge of the prosecution that the higher weightage earmarked to interview was a deliberate act to help particular candidates cannot be dismissed in the absence of evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, I hold that the CO is guilty of dereliction of duty and shirking of responsibilities.
28. ix) In the answer sheet of Shri Manish Majumdar, answer to Question No. 10 was awarded 06 marks whereas the question carried a maximum of 05 marks.
Prosecution
(a) The prosecution led to the evidence awarding 06 marks to a question which actually carried maximum 05 marks. Document P-16 which is a answer sheet of Shri Manish Majumdar has been shown. Here question No. 10 which is on letter writing, the evaluator has given 06 marks whereas the maximum mark to this is only 05.
Defence
(b) The CO on his part pleaded ignorance to the charge of higher marks on the ground that the evaluation was carried out by Army personnel chosen by his PCB. He submitted that he had no role in awarding higher marks or in assessment of the answer sheet since he was not associated in any way.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 46 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(c) Findings : - The CO in response to the, charges at para 03 (IV, V, VI, VII) of charge memo has admitted that he was not associated deeply with the process and so he should not be accused of omission arid commission. Similarly, here also he stated that he did not know about giving this marks. While this may be true since he did not evaluate the answer sheets, but as CEO, he could have entrusted another person to verify the totals of marks secured of shortlisted candidates. Further, on perusal of the letter written by the candidate Shri Manish Majumdar reveals poor English and the evaluation appears to be so liberal that the marks awarded were greater than the maximum. The answer did not deserve more than two marks whereas 06 marks were awarded. This leads to the suspicion that someone wanted to push up the marks of this candidate. In any case the answer scripts should not have been got evaluated by Havildar level officials and the CO should have objected to this. Overall the imputation of misconduct mentioned is held proved.
29. x) Fourteen candidates were issued letters on 3- 04-2010 asking them to appear in the interview on 27- 04-2010 whereas one candidate namely Shri Sumit Yadav was issued the letter on 26-04-2010, i.e. one day before the scheduled date of interview, to be conducted on 27-04-2010.
Prosecution
(a) Prosecution submitted evidence in the form of call letters for shortlisted candidates for appearing before interview. Whereas 14 candidates were called for interview on 3rd April, 2010, another candidate namely Shri Sumit Yadav was issued a letter asking him to appear for interview on 26th April, 2010 i.e. just one day before the day of interview. The letter is at P-18.
Defence mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 47 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(b) The CO in his defence submitted that the office superintendent Shri Sushil Rastogi brought to his notice on 26 April, 2010 about the omission in the list of candidates shortlisted for interview and therefore a letter was issued to Shri Sumit Yadav on 26th April, 2010. The CO proved in his cross examination that Shri Sushil Kumar, PW-4 admitted about this fact. Shri Sushil Kumar deposed that he checked the list of marks secured in the written examination and all those candidates who had secured more than 40 marks in written test were called for interview and accordingly the interview letters issued on 3rd April, 2010. However, by oversight Shri Sumit Yadav who secured 51 marks was left out and therefore interview letter was issued on 26th April, 2010. The CO stated in his written brief that as per the criteria adopted by Stn HQrs for issuing call letter for interview Shri Sumit Yadav was inadvertently left out and therefore had to be called for the interview. According to him this is in accordance with the principles of natural justice so as to correct mistake occurred earlier.
(c) Findings:
It is true that the candidate Shri Suimit Yadav was sent a letter on 26th April, 2010 while 14 others were issued on 3rd April, 2010. From the statement of CO, it appears that the decision on cutoff marks and shortlist of the candidates was also made in the Stn HQrs and the CO merely sent out letters of interview. He apparently did not scrutinize the statement of written test marks to verify the accuracy of the shortlist. This action shows that the CO, did not apply his mind in verifying the records. He has left the entire process to PCB and Stn HQrs which cannot be accepted. As appointing authority he should have exercised his own discretion and due scrutiny. Therefore this charge against the CO is proved."
30. xi)....
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 48 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
31. xii) The three candidates namely Ms Shilpi Keshri, Shri Sumit Yadav and Shri Manish Majumdar in whose case the omissions have been observed, were, therefore, irregularly recruited/ appointed by Shri Nalk.
Prosecution
(a) The prosecution to sum up has alleged that appointment of all the three candidates were made with omissions and commissions and therefore irregularly recruited by the CO. The prosecution through departmental witnesses provided evidence in the form of questions to say that these appointments were not proper. The prosecution held that the CO complied with oral instructions of his President and also associated other Army officials without any formal orders. As per rules, the CO was not under any obligation to comply with oral instruction of PCB. According to the prosecution, it amounts to abdication of responsibility and on his part to leave recruitment process in the hands of such officials who had no role. The prosecution argued that the CO failed to discharge the duties assigned by the Government.
Defence
(b) The CO on the other hand submitted that he has followed the procedure for recruitment scrupulously with the participation of elected and nominated members under the guidance of President Cantonment Board. Further, he has also taken all sanctions of higher authority as per instruction and advice were fallowed. The Dte, Defence Estates, Central Command, was kept 'informed of advertisements to recruitment process from time to time. The CO quoted Section 2 (1)
(c) & (d) of Cantonments Act empowering President with financial and executive administration of the Board, and rule 7(1) of CFSR 1937- under which CEO has to prescribe duties to CF servants to say that the procedure has been observed strictly. He summed up mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 49 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the process of selection i.e. setting of question papers by PCB, evaluation by Army officials and interview by Board was in a fair manner. He invited applications, processed them to hold a written test and issue call letters to the candidates shortlisted for skill /computer test and interview. The CO submitted that the charges in memorandum have not been substantiated against him. He claimed that he did not commit any irregularity or shown any lack of integrity in the appointment of three clerks and prayed that the charge memo dated 20th Sept, 2013 be dropped.
(c) Findings:
It is observed from the statements of witnesses of department as well as the CO and the documentary evidence provided by the CO that the CO surrendered his authority to make recruitments to his PCB and through him to other Army officials such as Adm Commandant and some Junior level Army Officials. He did not exercise control over the confidentiality of the question paper as well as evaluation of the answer sheets. The CO has pointed out in various paragraphs of his final brief as to how his PCB played major role which shows that the CO did not control whole recruitment, process. Although, the prosecution did not lead or provide evidence as to who actually manipulated the process i.e. whether PCB or other Army officials, it is clear from the evidence that the CO being appointing authority failed to discharge his duties effectively leading to the complaints of irregular recruitment. The CO stated that as CEO, Shahjahanpur was his first charge and did not know complete procedures. One or two omissions could have been ignored but there are a series of lapses bringing disrepute to the Organisation. Therefore I can't disagree with the Department's contention that the three appointments of Junior Clerks were irregular. Hence the charge is proved.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 50 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE SUMMARY Therefore, to sum up the CO is held guilty of the charges (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of charge memo (Annexure-II). He is not guilty of charges (ii), (vii) and (xi) of charge memo as brought out in above paragraphs."
33. Along with Annexure - A12 dated 29.05.2017, the Inquiry report was sent to the applicant who filed his reply (Annexure - A13) dated 02.07.2017. The detailed reply was filed by the applicant which runs from page no. 247 to 316 of the paper book. After due consideration, the penalty order dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure - A14) was issued. The Disciplinary Authority in is order (Annexure - A14) mentioned the entire facts, defence and the status of inquiry and thereafter in para 7 he gave the conclusion for placing the reliance upon inquiry report.
The Disciplinary Authority also considered each and every point in detail which is transpired from the following paras 7 to 10 of his report:-
"7. AND WHEREAS the Disciplinary Authority, after careful consideration of the aforesaid objections/contentions mentioned in the representation of Shri A. R. Naik, records its observations on each of them as under:-
(i) CO, being a public authority and also the appointing authority for the post of Junior Clerk for which action for recruitment was taken, was obligated to adopt a fair and transparent selection method which gives no scope for manipulation or mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 51 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE favouritism. However, records of the inquiry reveal that the terms and conditions mentioned in recruitment advertisement were not adhered to;
instructions regarding. conduct of written exam and evaluations of papers were violated; time limit was not mentioned on the question paper, candidates were allowed to submit applications on plain paper and on forms supplied by private agencies in violation of Instructions; candidates were allowed to record their answers on additional answer sheets instead on the objective type question paper; no typing test was conducted though it was mentioned in the advertisement and answers sheets of some of candidates were evaluated in clear violation of Instructions. CO has himself admitted to have been guided by the advice of a subordinate official. This indicates that CO was unaware of relevant rules/regulations and Government instructions and was resorting to adhoc-ism in a public recruitment process.
(ii) Fair and transparent method of selection and dispassionate conduct of selection process are essential requirement of any public recruitment. In the instant case, CO failed to ensure fairness of the recruitment process and associated some military officials, without authorizing them appropriately, in the selection procedure leading to a series of irregularities. CO has claimed that setting of question paper, evaluation of answer sheets and interviews were conducted under the instructions of the President Cantonment Board. But he did not produce any documentary evidence like office orders, Cantonment Board Resolution or note sheet etc. which prove that PCB or other Army personnel were authorized by him, as the Appointing Authority, to associate with the selection process. If the CO associated them in the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 52 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE process informally, it was completely illegal as it left the complete process in the hands of some people who were controlling it without any legal authority and accountability. This serious omission on the part of the CO was the main cause of irregularities in the selection process.
(iii) The argument that appointments were made only after obtaining permission of the Directorate is found to be irrelevant and based on fallacious reasoning. The proposal forwarded by CO vide letter dated 21.05.2010 did not contain details of selection process or records of its proceedings so Directorate could not have been aware of the irregularities committed in the process. CO had actually sought through said proposal, sanction to fill up third permanent post for which he had already completed recruitment modalities. However, Directorate vide their letter dated 09.08.2010 accorded sanction for filling up of one temporary post of Junior Clerk for ensuing year i.e. 01.03.2010 to 28.02.2011. Hence, claim of CO is not correct. Further, it was the CO who was Appointing Authority under the relevant rules and not the Directorate DE. There is no rule or provision under CFSR, 1937 which prescribes approval of the Directorate before declaration of results. Even otherwise, Directorate has nowhere validated the process of selection. They have merely accorded sanction to fill up certain temporary posts.
(iv) Material evidence on record indicate that selection process was manipulated to the extent to render it unfair to most of the candidates as mentioned in Para 7(1) above. (v) Limited training and experience and other responsibilities are no defence for the conduct of the CO which emerged from lack of firm resolve to assert his mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 53 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE authority. CO could have sought guidance from higher authorities in case he felt that he did not have requisite experience. The programme of recruitment was hastily drawn and hurriedly concluded without even waiting for approval of the Directorate which disproves the claim of CO.
(vi) The contention of the CO in para 6(vi) above is irrelevant to the case. Members of Public Service Commissions are public servants and are accountable to appropriate authorities.
(vii) Contention in this para is an admission by CO that he had initiated process of recruitment on oral instructions and then advertised the third post as per advice of his subordinate without waiting for formal approval from the Directorate. Regarding third post, the findings given in Para 7(iii) above may be referred. The sanction for third post was sought under A-2 head which was denied. Sanction was given by the Directorate for filing up temporary post of Junior Clerk in F-9 head and not for the permanent post under A-2 head which CO filled.
(viii) The inquiry has revealed that typing test was not conducted, Instead, a test to assess the skill of PPT was conducted which was unfair to the candidates as the advertisement mentioned English/Hindi typing (speed 30 w.p.m.) as desirable qualification. Though there is no mention of typing speed in scale register but qualification is clearly mentioned in advertisement as Intermediate English/Hindi typing. Therefore, to conduct a test for PPT as against Hindi/English typing was highly irregular putting many candidates to disadvantage.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 54 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(ix) CO has admitted that time limit on the question paper was not mentioned and it was orally mentioned by him in the examination hall. There is no evidence on record to show that PCB got the question paper prepared and statement is no defence for the CO because as Appointing Authority he was responsible for the selection process and not the PCB. Not mentioning time- limit on question paper was objectionable as it left scope for manipulation and favouritism. 10 has pointed out that some candidates seem to have been favoured by way of grant of additional time.
(x) Contention in instant para is only an admission by the CO that he was neither aware of the relevant rules/Govt. instructions nor was confident of handling the issue on his own. Guidance, if needed, should have been sought from the higher authorities and not from the subordinate officials.
(xi) CO has not been able to produce convincing evidence to prove that PCB got the answer sheets evaluated or PCB was in control of selection process. If such an arrangement was allowed to exist and operate without any written record for the same, then, CO is to be held responsible, being Appointing Authority. Records and evidence adduced during Inquiry unequivocally established that selection process was manipulated to the extent to render it unfair. Claim of CO regarding independence and fairness of valuation etc. do not hold water in the light of such evidences.
(xii) Allocation of 50 per cent weightage to interview was certainly against commonly followed norms of public recruitment and gave scope for manipulation and favouritism. Directorate had merely accorded sanction to fill up some temporary posts vide their letter dated mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 55 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 09.08.2010 which cannot be taken as validation of selection method adopted by CO. While fixation of 50 per cent weightage to interview does not automatically lead to unfair selection, but certainly it provided scope for manipulation which is brought out from evidence on record.
(xiii) CO was the Appointing Authority in the recruitment undertaken. Whether he kept informed PD, DE, PCB or OS is not relevant since the responsibility to ensure a fair, transparent and objective selection process rested with the CO. In any case complete facts/details were not conveyed to the Directorate, only results were communicated from which it is difficult to make out irregularities in the selection process. Lacunas like use of whitener by candidates, evaluator making mistakes in giving marks are certainly not the direct responsibility of the Appointing Authority but such occurrences point to lax supervision and unwillingness on part of CO to take subsequent corrective action.
(xiv) Contention in para 6 (xiv) is no defence for the CO. The question is whether separate answer sheets were permissible as per instructions or not. Just because many candidates did it, an irregular act shall not become regular.
(xv) (a) The claim of the CO that recruitment was undertaken with the approval by the Directorate is belled by Dte letter dated 09.06.2010 and 11.06.2010 vide which CO was asked to furnish explanations for filling up one additional post of Junior Clerk without obtaining prior sanction of the Dte. The 10 has also brought out clearly in his findings that CO has already notified temporary post in Employment News dated 12.09.2009 to 16.09.2009 based on earlier sanction and Dte rejected CO's request for third post vide letter mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 56 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE dated 15.10.2009, therefore, he could not have asked for temporary post again in his letter dated 20.05.2010.
(b) The advertisement published clearly mentioned that application forms shall be supplied by the Cantonment Board on payment of requisite fee Rs. 200/-. Therefore, acceptance of applications even on similar proforma from other agencies was in violation of instructions published. 10 has also brought out that proforma used by some candidates did not contain mandatory undertaking. So claim of CO is not correct. An irregularity committed by large number of candidates cannot validate it.
(c) CO's claim regarding non-production of letter dated 06.04.1990 is irrelevant in view of extract of scale register produced by prosecution as well as advertisement published which clearly mentioned English/Hindi typing as qualification. As mentioned in para 7 (viii) above, it has been established beyond doubt that typing test was not conducted, instead a test for assessing skills of PPT was conducted. CO has not brought anything on record to prove that PCB constituted Interview Board.
(d) CO, being the Appointing Authority was responsible for free, fair and objective conduct of recruitment process. He cannot shirk from responsibility by mentioning names of other officials. If he had assigned responsibilities to some other persons unofficially and selection process was manipulated, blame still rests with CO being the Appointing Authority.
(e) The 10 in its finding over this issue has pointed out that question paper was compromised and CO was responsible for permitting this kind of situation to arise where he failed to exercise any control over the recruitment process. Both Shri Sumit Yadav and Ms. Shilpi Kesari used additional answers sheets for mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 57 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE replying objective type questions which should have been marked on the paper itself. Ms. Shilpi Kesari also scored unusually high marks in objective type paper as compared to descriptive type paper. Therefore, there is no reason to disagree with finding of 10 that CO did not ensure proper conduct of examination and evaluation. CO could have very well test-checked some of the answer sheets before proceeding to next step of interview. The so-called non-association of the CO from various stages of selection process is Indicative of abdication of authority.
(f)The argument of the CO that he was not associated with conduct of interview and actual award of marks implies a clear abdication of responsibility as Appointing Authority. Constitution of independent evaluators is only the first step, CO should have ensured that the committee and evaluators functioned in an unbiased, fair and objective manner which has not happened in the case. The 10 has rightly brought out in report that CO remained a spectator to adhocism resorted to by the Interview Board which is proved by defence document (D-20) in which the marks given by each Interview Board member have been mentioned in column 5 which is actually column for computer knowledge/typing test and not for the interview. But while preparing final result the marks given by each member in aforesaid column were collated to give total marks for 'interview'. 10 has also pointed out that it is not clear how interview marks were integrated related to computer knowledge/typing test. One cannot but agree with view of 10 that two of the three selected candidates got unusually high marks in Interview which gives rise to suspicion that they were being helped through higher weightage to interview. Element of favouritism was allowed a free play.
(g) CO's plea that he was not associated with the process of selection is an admission that he abdicated mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 58 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE responsibilities of Appointing Authority. 10's observation is correct that though CO Is not supposed to evaluate answer sheets but he could have assigned responsibilities to some officials to prevent such error. 10's observation that the particular candidate (namely, Shri Manish Majumdar) was being favoured as marks awarded to him appear to be excessive is also correct.
(h)Though it appears an inadvertent error that one candidate was left out while issuing call letters for interview but 10's observations hold merit that CO had completely abdicated his responsibility of scrutinizing, guiding and. controlling the process of selection in favour of Stn. HQ which had no role in the selection process and CO was blindly obeying unofficial commands of some military officials in abject surrender.
(i) The claim of CO regarding recruitment process being fair, transparent and objective is belied by the facts established during the course of Inquiry. Recruitment process was started without waiting for the approval of the Directorate, DE for which CO was asked to furnish explanation also; no formal office orders outlining the method of selection, constitution of selection committee, detailing personnel for conduct of exam and evaluation of paper etc. were issued; Stn. HQ officials who, had no role in the matter seemed to have been given full control of the selection process without accountability leading to all sorts of adhoc-ism, manipulation and favouritism; prescribed eligibility test. of typing was not conducted; some arbitrary computer knowledge test was conducted putting most of the candidates to disadvantage and against the norms mentioned in the advertisement; application forms were accepted in disregard of instructions published in the advertisement; no time limit was indicated on question paper; some candidates were allowed to write answers leisurely as they wrote questions of objective mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 59 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE type paper instead of ticking answers there itself; Answers sheets in violations of Instructions were evaluated; unusually high weightage of 50% was given to interview giving scope of manipulation and favouritism which was duly exercised by Interview Board; no proper record of proceedings of the selection was kept; interview marks were confused with PPT test/Computer knowledge test marks; Interview Committee awarded marks for computer PPT test which were taken as interview marks; some candidates were awarded more than maximum marks for a question; some candidates were left out while issuing call letters while making merit list. Clearly, Appointing Authority abandoned all authority to the Stn. HQ and exercised no control over the selection process resulting Into compromise of question paper, manipulation of typing test/interview and thus leading to various complaints of irregularities.
xvi) (a) CO's claim in para 6(xvi) (a) is self-defeating. If Dte letter dated 15.10.2009 was not received, then he had all the more reason to not proceed with filling up of the third post for which he had sought sanction. How can non-receipt of Dte letter be treated as approval of Directorate is not understood. This contention is substantiated by the fact that the Dte vide letters dated 09.06.2010 and 11.06.2010 asked CO to furnish explanation for filling up third post of Junior Clerk. 10 has also brought out in his findings that CO had already notified one temporary post based on earller sanction therefore he could not have asked for temporary post again in May, 2010. The sanction accorded by Dte in August, 2010 related to next year's temporary vacancy. The CO had sought sanction for one additional permanent post which was denied, process of filling up of which was started by CO, nonetheless by seeking to adjust the same against next year's temporary vacancy sanction. Filling up or advertising a post on the advice of Office mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 60 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Superintendent without approval of the Directorate is indicative of the fact that CO was unable to discharge the duties of the post he was holding.
(b) The charge against the CO is that he accepted applications on forms other than those supplied by the Board in violation of instructions mentioned in the advertisement. CO has not denied the same. Accepting fee from those candidates or accepting similar applications from other candidates is no defence because instructions stood violated. CO being the controlling, guiding and supervising officer of officials entrusted with scrutiny of applications is responsible for their lapses as well and for failing to take necessary corrective measures in time.
(c) CO has been unable to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim that typing test was conducted. The defence documents produced by him show that candidates were asked to make a power point presentation instead of normal typing test and thus putting many candidates to disadvantage who must have come prepared for typing test. Inquiry has revealed that no typing test was conducted.
(d) The Issue regarding not giving time limit on the question paper has been revealed in inquiry. Oral announcement cannot be a substitute for recorded time limit which leaves scope for manipulation and favouritism. There are indications that some candidates were given extra time to complete their papers. Therefore, claim of CO that none was favoured or suffered is not substantiated from records of the Inquiry.
(e) Two candidates were allowed to write their answers on plain paper (additional sheets) instead of indicating their answers on objective type question paper itself. These answer sheets were evaluated despite violation mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 61 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of instructions. 10 has rightly concluded that it was CO who permitted the kind of situation to arise where question paper was compromised; Instructions violated; no corrective steps were taken at the evaluation stage and finally those candidates were declared selected who had violated instructions.
(f) It is amply clear from the records of Inquiry that CO worked without application of mind. CO should have advised the Interview Board for adopting correct methodology of interview based on fair and reasonable criteria. 10 has rightly pointed out that there is no document to show if interview Board allocated any criteria and weightage for different parameters. Records show that members of Interview Board recorded their marks for computer knowledge/typing test in the assessment sheets and same were collated for all the members and shown as marks of Interview in the final result sheet. 10 has pointed out that Higher weightage to interview should have been avoided to prevent subjectivity and favouritism to any candidate. Unusually high marks in the interview to two selected candidates is pointer to the fact that higher weightage to interview was a deliberate act.
(g) CO has claimed that he cannot be blamed for the fault of the evaluator but normally in public examination, answer sheets are got checked by one evaluator and then total etc. are checked by another evaluator to sort out discrepancies/error, if any. Obviously it was not done. 10's observation is correct that marks awarded to this selected candidate were quite liberal which. perhaps caused the error. The responsibility of deputing appropriate level of officials for checking/cross checking the marks and guiding them rested with CO in which he failed. It is the overall adhoc-ism, haphazardness, and loose or no control of Appointing Authority which resulted in serious mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 62 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE irregularities in the examination and to that extent CO must own responsibility.
(h) Though on the surface, leaving one particular candidate from the list of Interview appears an innocuous error but 10 has correctly brought out deeper malaise in the whole selection process. The CO, despite, being the Appointing Authority was working under the command and control of Stn. HQ and was certainly found lacking in due discharge of his duties. He failed to apply his mind and followed dictates of Stn. HQ and advices of his subordinates blindly resulting in glaring errors in the selection process.
(1) The claim of the CO that recruitment proceeding were transparent and were undertaken with the approval of Competent Authority is belied by facts established during the Inquiry as mentioned in Para xv
(i) above, hence it needs to be rejected.
(xvii) In the end, Shri A.R. Naik has quoted several judgements of different courts to support his contention that the findings of the 10 are not sustainable in law. The citations are not exactly relevant to the Inquiry and CO has not been able to present them in a coherent manner either. He has merely tried to interpret them selectively to suit his view point and to cover, rather unsuccessfully, his own acts of omission and commission which have been unveiled comprehensively by the findings of the 10 in a transparent manner. The citations have mainly focussed on following issues:-
(a) There is no hard and fast rule regarding weightage to be given to interview and written exam and it is upon the Interview Board or Selection Committee to take view on same as per the requirements of the post.
(b) Mere suspicion cannot be basis for punishment and due care should be exercised even in disciplinary proceedings that innocent are not punished.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 63 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(c) Findings must be based on sufficient material evidence and not purely on surmises and conjectures. Principles of natural justice be adhered to and evidence be sustainable in law.
The above contentions of the CO have been examined by the Disciplinary Authority and observations on same are as under:
(a) The contention that higher weightage to interview per se cannot be termed as unfair and that Selection Committee has a right to decide the weightage and parameters for the interview is agreeable. However, in the instant case, there are no records to show that the issue was deliberated upon at any level. 10 has pointed out that it is not at all clear that how the weightage to interview and written exam was decided. Nor it is coming on record as to on what parameters candidates were to be judged in the interview. The decision to give 50 per cent weightage to interview appears to be completely arbitrary without any rational basis and if seen in light of final results one cannot avoid the impression that it was meant to help certain candidates. 4
(b) The charges against CO are not based as suspicion but based on hard evidence. CO seems to be unaware of the serious irregularities which were committed in his name in the selection proceedings.
(c) There are no surmises or conjectures in the report of the 10. It is a fairly balanced report. He has given benefit of doubt to CO at least on two imputations. There is sufficient material evidence on record in respect of other imputations which has been carefully analysed by the 10 in light of defence of the CO and after due consideration of contentions of the CO he has given his findings. Therefore, CO's contentions have no merit.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 64 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
8. AND WHEREAS all the contentions raised by the CO in his representation dated 02.07.2017 as mentioned above have been carefully analysed and considered by the Disciplinary Authority and It is apparent that CO being the Appointing Authority abdicated his responsibility and left the matter of recruitment to persons, who normally should not have also undertaken such job, be it the President Cantt. Board or other Army officials. If at 7 all, Appointing Authority wanted a Committee to do the job of recruitment, all final decisions should have been with the CO (CEO & Appointing Authority), which does not seem to be the case here. There is no record to show how all works connected with recruitment, e.g. setting question papers, checking answer sheets etc were to be carried out and by whom. There was no proper assigning of responsibilities with relevant office orders etc. Hence, it is a case of dereliction of duty as well as lack of devotion to duty. The recruitment process, therefore, suffered from fairness & transparency. However, charge of lack of absolute integrity can not be said to be established conclusively from the findings of the Inquiry. Otherwise, findings of the Inquiry Officer are just, fair and reasonable purely based on material evidence placed on record.
9. AND THEREFORE, after careful consideration of the charges framed against Shri A. R. Naik, ex-CEO, Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur, Inquiry Report dated 13.04.2017 submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the representation dated 02.07.2017 made by Shri A. R. Naik, all relevant documents concerning with the case and facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority has concluded that charges levelled against the CO stand proved to the extent indicated in the Inquiry Report dated 13.04.2017 except the integrity aspect which remained Inconclusive.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 65 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
10. NOW ACCORDINGLY, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 15, (6) of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the, Disciplinary Authority has come to a conclusion that justice would be met by imposing the penalty of "Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages for one year with further direction that he will not earn any increment during the period of such reduction. However, considering the charge of lack of integrity being not conclusively established from the records of Inquiry, the aforesaid reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay on expiry of such period" with immediate effect on Shri A. R. Naik, ex-CEO, Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur. It is further directed that a relevant entry in the service records of Shri A. R. Naik, ex-CEO, Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur be made."
34. The applicant submitted the appeal dated 30.04.2018 and the Appellate Authority also considered the points raised by the applicant and passed the order dated 24.01.2022 (Annexure -
A17). By the aforesaid order, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the appeal dated 30.04.2018 preferred by the applicant being devoid of any merit, hence, the Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty imposed upon the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 22.03.2018.
35. Upon perusal of the aforesaid document, it appears that the applicant was solely responsible for conducting the recruitment. He selected three persons named Shilpi Keshri, Sumit Yadav and Manish Majumdar. As per detailed discussion mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 66 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE in the inquiry report, it is found that the application was required to be submitted upon the prescribed format provided by the department after depositing the fees of Rs. 200/-, but the application of one selected candidate was submitted on plain paper and she/he also gave the answers upon the plain paper while the answer was required to be given upon the prescribed format of question paper. One selected candidate submitted his application on a format provided by outside agency and he also gave the answer on plain paper. It was also found that the call letter for interview was issued on 03.04.2010 and scheduled date for interview was 27.04.2010, but the call letter of Sumit Yadav was issued only one day before the date of interview. In other words, the interview was scheduled on 27.04.2010 and the call letter of Sumit Yadav was given on 26.04.2010 while the other call letters were already issued on 03.04.2010. Candidate Manish Majumdar was awarded 06 marks for Question No.10 while the question was of only 05 marks. Maximum 05 can be awarded while the candidate got 06 marks.
36. The applicant argued before the Court that he was not concerned with the evaluation and the submission of the applications but, this argument having no any force. The applicant was the CEO who issued the advertisement and was the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 67 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE sole in charge of the aforesaid examination. It was his duty to see each and every step of the examination and to put the effective control upon the process of examination, process of acceptance and applications and process of evaluation etc.
37. It was also found that the sanction was only for 02 posts.
Initially, 02 posts were advertised by the applicant. His prayer to sanction 3rd post was already denied by the superior Office but the applicant issued the corrigendum and advertised one more post for which the sanction was not available. The sanction was granted after a long time. By the letter dated 15.10.2009, the advice was given to the applicant to fill up only 02 posts and it was stated that the proposal for 3rd post may be considered in due course but not now. The applicant took a plea that the aforesaid letter was not received. If the letter was not received, then how he filled the aforesaid 3rd post and why he issued the corrigendum of the advertisement. If the request was pending and reply was not received, in that condition also the applicant was not having any power to issue the advertisement for the 3rd post.
38. The applicant draws attention towards the evidence of some witnesses and highlighted some portion of the examination of witnesses for showing the fact that he took the advice of the mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 68 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE senior employee of the department but the aforesaid arguments cannot be accepted. If the junior employee has some experience, then the advice may be taken but before acting upon the aforesaid advice, it is the duty of the concerned officer to satisfy in the light of rules and regulations. The applicant was responsible for conducting the recruitment process. He was not expected to act blindly upon the advice given by junior staff.
Therefore, the aforesaid argument is not acceptable.
39. Another argument advanced by the applicant was related to his experience. This arguments also having no any force. If an officer is holding a post, then it is expected from the officer to go through the relevant rules and regulations and to act as per rules and not place the reliance only upon the advice given by some staff. Lack of experience cannot be treated as a sufficient ground in the light of the defaults and irregularities committed in the examination process.
40. The applicant did not raise any particular point for showing the fact that any violation of natural justice was done in the complete inquiry process. Sufficient opportunity at every stage was given to the applicant and all points raised by the applicant were considered by the concerned authorities before passing the relevant orders.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore suneja 2026.01.30 15:32:36+05'30' 69 OA.No.170/00070/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
41. The act was committed in 2009-10 while the final appellate order was issued on 24.01.2022. The applicant superannuated from service on 31.05.2021 after attaining the age of superannuation. Looking to the aforesaid position, the punishment awarded to the applicant cannot be said as disproportionate punishment. Leniency is also found in the quantum of punishment. It is mentioned that "considering the charge of lack of integrity being not conclusively established from the record of inquiry, the aforesaid reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay on expiry of such period". The reduction to a lower stage for one year has been done which is the appropriate punishment, looking to the delay and the act committed by the applicant.
42. Therefore, this OA having no any force, hence, dismissed.
43. All pending MA(s) will be treated as disposed of.
44. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
suneja 2026.01.30
15:32:36+05'30'