Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Balwant Ramashankar Singh vs M/O Finance on 4 May, 2023
OA Mod29 af 2019 Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai O.A. No.d29/2019 Reserved on 26" of April, 2023 hee Pronounced on G4" of May, 2023 Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A) Balwant Ramashankar Singh (Son of Late Shri Ramashanker Rajaram Singh) DOB: 08.06.1969, age 50 vears, Working as: Inspector (Examiner) on Adhoc basis (Group "B" Non-pazetted Post), under Commissioner OF Customs (Gen), New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001, and residing at: Block "A', 3" Floar, Shantibhavan, 135, Parmar Guruji Marg, Parel (East), State of Maharashtra- 400012. vo. ADPicant & (Mr. RG. Walia, Advocate} Versus 1. Union of India Through -- Chief Commissioner of Customs (Appellate Authority), Mumbai Zone-l, 2°" Bloor, Old Building, New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. "2, Commissioner of Customs (General) (Disciplinary Authority}, 2° Floor, (id Building, New Customs House, Ballard Estate, = Mambai-400001. .. Respondents OA Nose9 of 19 ORDER
Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi:-
Applicant has led the present Original Application challenging thecharge sheet dated 15.12.2010 and the punishment order dated 11.11.2016 whereby he was pee with the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages Wiel OL.12.2016 for a period of two years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. Applicant has alsa challenged the order in appeal passed by the Appellate Authority dated 10/12.09,2018, {Annexure A-2) whereby the appeal of applicant against the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority was rejected,
2. At the very outset, proxy counsel for respondents raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has not approached Tribunal after exhausting all remedies. He submitted that applicant had not challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority by filing a revision petition, as such, the GA is not maintainable. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:
(1) Kamleshwar Singh v Union of India GOrs. in Civil Writ Petition No.@619 of 2022, Hon'ble Patna High Court.
(iD Kamleshwar Singh vy Union of Inida&Ors. in OA No.g59/2020, CAT, Patna Bench, (iif) Arvind Rumar ov. Union of India &Ors. in OA No.4 lov2020, CAT, Patns Bench, ay) sata Neg ath v. Union of India &Ors, in OA No.9? LO Te:
go 2AT r ay Beaek Net RS SF ee Ride dss GA No dio of 2019 Vv} Tushar Mandwala yv. Union of India &Ors. in OA No. 149/2012, CAT, Ahmedabad Bench (2016 SCC OnLine CAT 1216) ivi} S. Ramanujam v. ICMR &Ors. in OA No.860/2012, CAT, Ermakulam Bench (2015 SCC OnLine CAT 5176} {vu} GD. Sharma v. Union of India &ors. in OA No87/2010 Central Administrative Tribunal at Principal Bench (2011 SCC OnLine CAT 16440 (vil) Dalip Kumar v. Union of India &ors. in OA No. 1420/2007 CAT, PB (2008 SCC OnLine CAT 73}.
3, Admittedly, no revision against the order of Appellate Authority has been preferred by the applicant. Proxy counsel for respondents drew our attention to the provisions for revision under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, pointing out that the same has been provided under the said rule, and argued that the OA without exhausting the remedy of revision is premature.
4, Counsel for the epplicant vehemently argued that revision is not mandatory and that the OA without preferring the revision is maitainable. He referred to Sub Section 3 and 3 of Section 20 of ALT. Act, "20, Application not to be admitted unless other (1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redresasal of grievances.
ei S Rg Os, oy A z ey i a foun, a, QA Nod2s of 2079 (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of erievance,-
(a) Ha final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent tO pass such order under such rules rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b) Where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on Which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of sub-sections sections (1) and {2}, any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies. which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial."
Referring to Section 20 (1) (2) (a) of the ALT. Act, 1b was argued that as the appeal of the applicant had heen rejected, he was deemed to have availed the statutory remedy and therefore the OA could not be said to be premature, He also pointed out that as applicant had availed remedy of appeal, he could not have filed a revision, as under Section 29 of the CCS CCA Rules, 196 5, remedy of revision is available against an order from whiel: an appeal is allowed, but a SS PRIVAT WR Oy Te eee sd $y po pas XS SEAS S., PEELE EE EEE ee ded 13 review from an order passed by the disciplinary authority, Rule R ule ur OA NG29 of 219 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules provides for a revision or a 29 & ees reads as follows:
1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules-
(i) the President; or Gi} the Comptroller and Auditor-General, In the case of a Government servant serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department; or
(i) the Member (Personnel) Postal Services Board in the case of a Government servant serving in or under the FPastal Services Board and Adviser (Human Resources Development), Department ot Telecomimunications in the case of a Government servant serving in or under the Telecomimntumnications Board; or
(iv) the Head of a Department directly under the Central Government, in the case of a Government servant serving In a department or office (mot being the Secretariat or the Posts and Telegraphs Board), under the control of such Head of a Department: or (vy the Appellate Authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed te be revised of
(vi) any other authority specified in this behalf by the President by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order;
may at any time, either on his or its own motion or otherwise calf for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by rule 34 from which an appeal ts allowed, but from which no appeal has been oreferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after eonsultation with the Commission where such ation is necessary, £ eperes aH TEL cos OA Node) af 2019
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or > oo 4 (0) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty | imposed by the order, or impose any penaliy where ove oa no penalty has been imposed; or {c} remit the case te the authority which made the order to or any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case: or id) pass such other orders as it may deem fit Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportanity of making a repress entation against the penalty proposed and where | it is proposed to umpose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v} to (x) of rule 11 or to enhance the "penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the peniallies specified in those clauses, and if an inquiry under rule 14 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except alter an inquiry in the manner laid down in rule 14 subject to the provisions of rule 19, and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary :
Provided further that no power of revision shall be exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Member (Personnel), Postal Services Board, Adviser {Human Resources Department}, Department of Telecommumnications or the Head of Department, as the case may be, vnlese-
(i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or
(i) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him.
(2) No proceeding for revision shall be commenced uniil after-
(i) the expiry of the period of Himilation for an appeal, ELLE edd ddan nf OA Nos2 of R19
(ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred.
(3) An application for revision shall be dealt with in the sare manner as if it were an appeal under these rules",
6. We are in agreement with the argument of counsel for the applicant. Applicant did prefer an appeal against order of the Disciplinary anon' the same was rejected, so it has led to finality of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, Moreover, this is a case where the appeal was rejected on 10/12.09.2018, (Annexure A-2), the OA was fled on 26" Jun, 2019 and the same has been pending since then. Pleadings are complete since long and at this stage when the matter was taken up for | final hearing, the preliminary objection was raised, Directing applicant to file a review at this stage would be a travesty of Justice and would lead to multiple litigations, In view of the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we reject the preliminary objection raised by respondents and proceed to decide this OA on merits.
7, The case of the applicant is that he had been charged with the allegation of falsifying the number of vacancies for promotion ip the grade oft Inspector (EO) bet e the DPC held on 26.12.2002. At the relevant point of meee was W working as UDC (Qyper Divisional Clerk) and the vacancy position or determination of the same wag the prerogative and authority of the Assistant Commissioner Customs or any other higher authority in. the Peyen and & gia haw maya § OTE ape wtoeet thet shment Section under their coriros. af is Stated thal OA Nod29 of B19 the applicant was made a scapegoat with ulterior motive and the aforesaid punishment order came to be issued against him even though there was no evidence available at all to prove the sole charge as alleged against him vide charge sheet dated 15.12.2010. It is pointed out thai, similarly, the same thing happened in restructuring of cadre of Appraiser, when the cadre strength of 409 was reported as 274, but at that time, the mistake was rec cognized and came to be rectified in the year 2014 by the Board itself and interestingly no charge sheet or responsibility was fixed on any officer for the said underreporting or w rong reporting.
TA {In the present case, applicant, who wes w orking as a UDC, was not even the authority to either determine the vacancy position ' cadre strength or could direct determination on the same. Thus, the charge of falsifyig the number of vacancies itself is false and bogus. There is no data 4 providse in the charge sheet as to what was the number of vacancies in the post af Examiner as on 26.12.2002 2a cl and as to what wrongly or false 'ly was put up by the applicant. It is BY stated that there were at least six levels of officer after the level of UDC which did not note any discrepancy in the reporting of the vacancies in the post of Examiner under the restructuring of Cadre and except the applicant, not a single person/officer. was chargesheeted. Entire blame has been levied on the applicant, thereby making him the scapegoat. It is * Wisged that it is only to hann and victimize the applicant that tte said char ge sheet dated IS.122010 was issued to him resulting in the impuaned ormishiment order dated 11.11.2016.
VOLLELTLEELOOLLLL LLL LILLIE TOLLE LLLLLLLLLLL ccc ddd ALELLLL ELE LS g OA No.d28 of 2018
3. Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had filed OA No.3/201] which finally came to dismissed on 12.01.2015. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer as appointed by the disciplinary authority which proceeded with the inquiry. He submits that a bare perusal of the charge sheet would show that there were two prosecution witnesses who were listed in support of proving the charges against the applicant as set out in article of charge-[ and proposed to be proved on the grounds of imputation framed in Annexure-IT in support of article of charge-[ and sought to be proved on the basis of listed documents under Annexure-Lll of the unpugned charge memo dated 15.12.2010 8.1 Further it was argued that the inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer which was attended by the Pres g Officer, Shri RK. Divedi, applicant and his defence assistant. The evidence of two prosecution witnesses was recorded during the inquiry proceedings. The applicant's defence witness was Shri Cus, Gupta who was working as an Appraiser in the P & E Department in the year 2001 and 2002 during the cadre restructuring. His evidence ee was recorded on Q9.07.2015 and 17.07.2015. Sumilarly, iwo pose witnesses Shri G. Satram (PW 1) and Shri Kalpesh Desai (PW 2) alsa deposed before the Inquiry Officer and were examined and cross-examined on various dates 2 Tt is submitted that not even 4@ single word from the per prosecution witnesses or the defence witness has been stated Hay F baa oe ieee garrettes wares oF x i the against the applicant as per their evidence recorded. Im fact, tne snce clearly reveals that the applicant had nothing fo give and OA Wo. of 2018 take with the calculation and presenting ofK vacancy position to the DPC under the cadre restructuring.
8.3 That the PW i, Shri G. Sairam, was examined by Presenting Officer and he tendered his statements dated 30.06.2008 recorded by Superintendent, CTU: Custom House, Mumbai, PW 1 stated that the statements were given by him and he had signed the Same and reiterated the same io be true and correct. The statement dated 30.06.2008 was taken on record. He also confirmed having prepared the vacancy statement dated 23.12.2602 along with Shri Kalpesh Desai, then UDC based on which DPC was held on 26.12.2002. The cross-examination of the PW has been placed on record on the paperbook from page 454 to 466, relevant portion of Which is reproduced below:
"Q 2. Today Tam showing you a Statement showing vacancy position of Examining Officer as on 23.12.2002 (RUD No.2}? Did you prepare it? For What purpose?
Ans. My answer is yes. ] had prepared the sane along with Shri Kalpesh Desai, UDC after consultation with the higher authorities Viz: Administrative Officer Shri N. Vidyadharan, Appraising Officer Shri CS. Gupta, and Shri P. Balakrishnan, DCVP&E and calculated vacancy position. The Vacancy position was seen by these officers & Shri Widyadharan, Admin. Officer also signed the same, aecordingly Os. Can it be said that at the material time 74 plus 8° totalling to 163 vacancies existed as on 26.12.2012 us. the date of DPC to be Alled-up by Promotion?
Ans. No. Por regular vacancy.
LLL ii OA Noda of BOTS Q5. Why?
oe oa A S| Ans. I have clarified above that we were informed Sf that DPC was to be held for regular vacancies. The note was therefore, prepared accordingly. These 74 officers were promoted only on Ad-hoc basis as Appraisers for six months, therefore, the same were considered in the working strength of Examiners and there was no such regular vacancy of 74. Out of 89 as stated above 44 was meant for Direct Recruits. This vacancy of 44 is carried forwarded for the last few years. Since the DPC was for "Regular Vacaney", DPC has considered the vacancy available for Promotion | Lew 48 vacancy. Purther, I would to clarify that there was no instructions from the higher authorities to merge the vacancy of 44 Direct Recruits for the Promotees as on 23.12.2002. However, the 44 Direct Recruit vacancy was shown separately in the statement.
O8. As per your reply above about promotion on ad- hoc basis, was there any officers who were promoted and working at the material time as Examiner on Ad- hoc basis? Ifso, how many?
Ans. 37 officers were promoted and working as Examiner on Ad-hoc basis. There were aginst the Cost Recovery Sanctioned Strength.
O23. Does it mean that all the facts as stated in the statement prepared by you and Shri Kalpesh Desai with the direction of the seniors (RUD Ne.2) was also brought to the notice of DPCY Ans. Yes. This Included the details of 74 Examiners who were promoted on Ad-hoe basis and wha were shown In the Working Strength of Examiners Le. 116 and 44 Direct Recruit Vacancy".
Further, the cross exammation of the PW 2 has been recorded at nave 475 to 486, relevant part of which is reproduced belaw:
OA No.839 of W19 "3. In the statement you had shown Sanctioned Strength after cadre restructuring as 205: W orking Strength as 116, Vacancies-DR (Direct Recruit) -- 44, PR (Promotee}- 21, Cadre Restructure-24, Total- 89, Please elaborate it regarding the working strength and vacancies?
Ans. We had shown 116 as working strength. This inchuded 74 examiners who were already promoted as Appraising Officer on Ad-hoc basis. Details of the Same are available in the statement. Since these officers were promoted only on Ad-hoc basis, the same were considered in the working strength of Examiners. The main reason being we were informed that DPC was to be heid for regular vacancies. Vacancy position as On 23.12.2002 was prepared accordinely. Further, 44 vacancies were meant for Direct Recruits, 21 by promotian and ¢ 24, on account of Cadre Restructuring. Hence, shown separately.
(9 14. Today I am showis mg you Note Sheet page VI], Vil and [IX of file NOS/5-719/2002 (RUB No.4) and draw your attention amonest others on the calculation of vacancy shown by Shri Balwant R. Singh, then UDC in Note Sheet Page No, [X that was signed on 23.12.2002. Is the calculation shown in the Note sheet Vis-A-vis based on your statement dated 23.12.2002 mentioned above (RUD No.2)?
Ans. Today Ihave seen these pages of Note Sheet and have signed the same in token of having seen the same Shri G, Sairam, had given a copy of the Statement prepared by us Le. RUD No.2 to Shri Balwant R. Singh, then UDC and as per the Note Sheet Page No.IX he had placed the same opposite in the file for information of the superiors.
eR Slyye yee Te ES rei i S bye wee j os by oe ERE SAE iMG. SSaRe. iS JASE CO me MATa eae E s FE ston « ge statement as. in Our statement we had COLLULLLLTEL hh OA No A2S af 2019 shown the vacancy as 21 to be filled on promotion [email protected] (shown as Pr} and 24 vacancy aroused on acoonnt of Cadre restructuring. 37 Examiners who were working on Ad-hoc basis (Cast Recovery basis} were required to be regularized if considered fit by pes and the same is correctiy shown in the Note Sheet above. The reason why we have not shown this 37 in our statement is mentioned above".
esa Shri CLS. Gupta, Defence Witness No.1] (DW-1), Appraise (Retired) was examined, which is recorded at page 435 to 437 of the paperbook, the ralevant part of the same is reproduced below:
"Qi. Please go through the records of PLNo. S/S- 719/2002 Est.. (pt. in Original which was produced today by the P &Estt. Section. This file begins with promotion of 74 examiners on Ad-Hoc basis and later on transfer of 44 DR vacancies of Examiner to promote quota, Please explain why this Two Block af Vacancies were not considered for promotion as Examiners on regular basis by the DPC held on 26.12.2002.
Ans. Today, Dhave gone through the Original file Nox s/5-7 19/2002 Estt. (PtD) and T put my signature on the first page of Note sheet and last page of the fle today in token of having seen the same. First of all | wish to record here that, Pages no VIE (SEVEN) to & (TEN) of the Noting Side of the file are found missing. These missing pages may contain 'Noting' pertaining to 'letter written to Board dated 6 March, 2003.
The DPC held on 26. 12.2002 was for filling up of VACANCIES OF PEN aminer on Regular basis. 74 Appraisers were promoted as Assistant Commuisioner vide order dated December, 2062 purely on Adhoc Basis. I means that the 74 Appraisers who were promoted as Assistant Commissioner purely on Adhoc Basis in Spt. aie ecember 2002, sul li had their len in their Parent cadre o P = } ey we Peyrey:
XS , Nes.4
ve 14 OA Nodes of G19 Le. Appraiser (Under Cadre Control of the Chief Appraisers on ad-hoc basis. This also means they also had their fien in their Parent cadre Le. Examiner (Under Cadre Control of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, therefore, consequential vacaney in the grade of examiner was not arose. These Adhoo Appraisers were shown in the working strength of Examiners. I had explained in detail in my statement dated 25.08.2008 recorded by CIU Mumbai about the change in the pattern of consideration of nature of vacancies We. Regular/Adhoc from Sept. 2002 onwards as per decision taken by then Jt. Commissioner Shri S.C. Rohtagi ic P & Est. Deptt.
O44. Please siate whether the method adopted for filling up of vacancies of examiners by DPC dated 26.12.2002 was also adopted for filling up of vacancies of Appraisers (in Regular basis} in Nov. 2002 and Preventive Officers in Regular basis by DPC dated 28.12.2002° Ans: Yes. The Policy adopted for all the three cadres were same. The method adopted for examiners was also adopted for Appraiser and Preventive Officers'.
8.4 Counsel for the applicant submits that the Inquiry Office gave his detailed Report on 08.10.2015 and as there was no iota of any evidence against applicant, he found him NOT GUILTY of the charge alleged against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority, illegally and arbitrarily issued the impugned di aa AEST cAeVE oe hon parece SET CSO. PLOTS dated 08.06.2016 to the applicant and the same was given to the applicant along with the Inquiry Officer's report dated 08.10.2015, tt a on tT Rooke alleged that the disagreement note js oompletely beyond th SCOpe OF tie charge SMSST HSCH ANC a new colour was given to the my Las} OA No Ale of 2019 entire charge sheet in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The disagreement note did not disagree with any of the findings of the IO but-as stated above, a new charge or a new colour was sought to be introduced by way of it. Ultimately, the impugned punishment order dated 11.11.2016 was came to be passed. The applicant filed a detailed appeal dated 29.12.2016 and made his written submission during the personal hearing held on 22.35.2018 and further submission as per directions of Appellate Authority on 07.06.2018. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
8.8 Counsel for the applicant submits that once it had come on record by way of evidence that the determination of the vacancy position was an act of other authorities, no charge could have been framed or substantiated against the applicant by the Disciplmary Authority, more so when the 1O had held the Charge not proved, On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, while nlacing his reliance on the Judgement of the Apex Court in Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force & Ors. vs. Rajendra Kumar Dube in Civil Appeal No.3820 of 2020 dated 28" Noy . 2020, submitted that the High Courts shall not venture info re-appreciation of the evidence. The relevant part of the said Say od pepe ead weneceber sree pas eheete ce co pent as PSI Nt Teas asunder: : es ae ee 4 in paragraph 13 of the judement, the Court heid that:
OA No dee of 2019 843
3. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constituion of India, the High Court shall not:
a sc hia ms {3} re-appreciate the evidence (1) interfere with the conc lusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in sceordance with law:
Gi} 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 i may appear to be:
(vil) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
10. ina recent judgment delivered by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. ys. Heem Singh in Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2020 and relied upon by the SC in the above case, the fo! observations were made:
"33. 0... At the other end of the spectrum is the oF rin ciple that the court has the jurisdiction to inter! ere hen the findings in the enquiry are base evidence or when they suffer from perversity. to consider vital evidence is an incident of whe 8 egards a5 a perverse determination of fact. Pr >roportionality iS an entrenched feature of our durispradence. Service jurisprudence has recognized ff for long years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are GA No.2? of 2019 disproportionate to the weight of the evidence or misconduct, ..", Li» We find that the law as dawn by the Apex court in State of Rajasthan &Ors. ys. Heem Singh (supra) would be relevant in the present facts as no evidence what so ever was brought before the 10 to support the charge. Rather the Disciplinary Authority in @ perverse manner disagreed with the 10 merely on surmises and conjectures.
12. Apart from the above contentions, which have been dealt with above, counsel for the respondents did not offer any other arguments.
13. Prima facie, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have materially erred In interfering with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer which were on appreciation of evidence on record, both. doctumentary as well as oral. During enquiry boih prosecution witness and one defence witness have categorically admitted that ¢ they had prepared the chart/calculation af vacancies to be reported to DPC for filling up by promotion. Once prosecution witnesses admitted their role, nothing remamed against the applicant.
o Disciplinary Authority went on a wild guessing spree, when he «. tried to prove that somehow reporting less number of yacarisies was advantageous to the applicant. There is no denying the fact that there were atleast sis authorities above the applicant who had reviewed the information. Further, applicant's promot On Was f dsdicgacd Wa Soee poe sraethar AY werametae tn her Mi heeb oa:
Qeneyea OY A YAP Oe Us le S Thameer OF VaCancies To DS Billed up an OA NodzZ9 af 2019 by promotion. If the number as suggested had been reported, applicant would have been promoted a: year earlier. Yet the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with 1O's report and passed punishment order. We are unable to agree with the Disciplinary Authority here. We are guided by the law laid down in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Others, ATR 1978 SC 1277, it was held that the minimum requirement of the rules of natural fustice is that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence Le. cogent material with which some degree of definiteness points to the euilt of the delinquent in respect of charges against him. The findings, if based on no legal evidence, then they are either ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises. The Disciplinary proceedings thus suffer from the infirmity of non-application of mind and stand vitiated.
ig. Further, in Union of India v. HC. Goel [Union of India x. HC. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : ATR 1964 SC 364], Apex Court held that W the conclusion upon cons side ration of the evidence ached by the disciplmary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, awrit of certiorart could be issued,
15. In the present case,we find that disciplinary authority, while disagresing with the IO, has recorded finding that is Ss not supparted by any evidence whatsoever. As such we are spurred to sav that 4 finding which is unreasonably arrived at can be interfered with by the Tribunal, We are thus of the opinion that the Disciplinary and 18 OA No.di9 of 2019 the Appellate Authorities' orders sutfer from grave illegality and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
i6. In view of the above discussions, the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities' orders dated L1112016 and 10/12.09.2018, UAnnexure A-2) respectively are quashed. The OA is allowed alone with consequential benefits. Pending MAs, if any, aisa stand closed. No cast.
(Shri Krishna) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member G7) enh