Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
O Adinarayana vs Post Ap Circle on 5 February, 2025
1
OA.No.228/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS NO.020/00228/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON 08.01.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 05.02.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
O.P.Adinarayana, Gr-C
S/o Sri. Late O.Appalanaidu
Aged 47 years
Occ: Postal Asst. Ukkunagarm SO
a/w Waltair RS 530 004.
Visakhapatnam Division
R/o Siddarthanagar, Vadlapudi SO
Visakhapatnam Dist AP
Mbl: 8331002579
Email: [email protected] .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri B.Gurudas)
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by
The Secretary to the Govt. of India
Dept of Post Dak Bhavan
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
AP Circle, Vijayawada 520 013, AP.
3. The Director of Postal Services
O/o. The Postmaster General
Visakhapatnam Region
Visakhapatnam - 530017.
4. The Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices
Visakhapatnam Division
Visakhapatnam - 530001.
5. The Supdt. of Post Offices
Srikakulam Division
Srikakulam - 532001. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.228/2023
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"....to call for the records pertaining to the - i. Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-I) ii. Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22 dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure-III and iii. Memo No.st/13-19/108/OPA/2021 dated 4.11.2022 (Annexure-VIII) Awarding heavy penalty on the basis of false allegations and rejecting the appeal of the applicant ignoring the documentary evidence and the submissions made by him and a. Declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and b. Set aside and quash the said illegal orders with consequential direction to the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from the pay of the applicant and c. Pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant worked as Postal Assistant at Palasa SO in the Srikakulam Postal Division, from May, 2011, to 2022. According to him, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division/R5 issued a charge memo under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, on the basis of a false complaint made against him, at the instance of the Sub Postmaster, who was inimical towards him, without making a thorough investigation, vide Memo NO.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dt.27.10.2021. The charge against the applicant is as follows:Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.228/2023 Charge:
"that Shri O.P.Adinarayana went for lunch at 12:30 hrs and refused to book the parcels brought by Shri M.Manoj and also the Intermediate Examination parcels when presented. Thus, it is alleged that Shri O.P.Adinarayana, Palasa SO refused to book the parcels brought by Shri M.Manoj and also refused to book the 28 (twenty eight) Intermediate Examination parcels brought by the Chief Examination officer on 18.09.2021 at Palasa SO violating the provisions contained in rule 3(1) (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964."
ii. The applicant submitted his explanation, dt.01.11.2021, in response to the charge memo. According to the applicant, Sri M.Vemana, Postal Assistant, while working as Sub Postmaster on officiating basis, committed some financial irregularities, which were brought to the notice of higher authorities by the applicant. Keeping this in view, Sri Vemana made his friend Manoj Kumar, to file a false complaint against him stating that the applicant had refused to book parcels brought by him and also examination parcels, which is not correct. The applicant did not leave the office at 12:30 hrs., as alleged. In fact, he was in the office booking articles, including the intermediate examination parcels which can be seen from the mail transaction report, dt. 18.09.2021. On that day, the applicant booked 52 articles, whereas the Sub Postmaster booked 9 articles only. The complaints were not shown to the applicant, in spite of specific request, violating the principles of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority, who was prejudiced against the applicant, for pointing out some procedural irregularities and also financial irregularities, awarded the harsh penalty of reduction of pay from 31,400/- to Rs.30,500/-, from 1.1.2022, for a period of 3 years, without cumulative effect, and Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.228/2023 without having the effect of postponing future increments of pay, vide Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dt. 28.12.2021.
iii. Aggrieved with the unjust and heavy penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred his appeal, dt.24.01.2022, to the Appellate Authority/R3, clearly explaining the facts and circumstances, on the following grounds:
a. The complaints containing the false allegations against the applicant were made with the connivance and at the instance of Shri M.Vemana, officiating SPM. The complainant, Manoj, is his close friend and they both belong to the same village. b. The certificate issued by the Principal, Government Junior College, Palasa, is reproduced below from which it can be seen that the applicant did not refuse to book Intermediate Examination parcels on 18.9.2021 or any other day, and had actually extended cooperation and earned appreciation. "this is to certify that we have not lodged any complaint with the Postal Authorities for not booking/ refused to book Intermediate Examination parcels brought by us on 18.9.2021 at Palasa SO by Shri O.P.Adinarayana, Postal Assistant. In fact, we don't have any inconvenience in booking our examination parcels on any day including 18.9.2021. Shri O.P.Adinarayana used to extend his cooperation all times. Hence, this appreciation letter issued."
c. ASPOs, Tekkali, Sub-division, recorded the applicant's statement, without showing the complaints received against him. He was not given an opportunity to peruse the complaints or contradict the same in the presence of the complainant and the officiating Sub Post Master.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.228/2023 d. In spite of heavy work in the branches, including MPCM and Treasury, he managed to complete the work satisfactorily. On 18.9.2021, in fact, the applicant booked 52 parcels including Intermediate Examination parcels right from 9.03 to 15.00 hours, besides attending to the treasury work. All these transactions are recorded and computer generated transaction reports will establish that the applicant did not leave the office at 12:30 and never refused to book any parcels presented at the counter.
e. Shri M.Vemana had stated that he had booked the parcels using the user ID of the applicant (Postal Assistant) which is not possible because one person cannot handle two computers at a time. Further, the Sub Postmaster cannot use the password of the Postal Assistant at the same time, simultaneously. Transaction reports generated on computers will disprove the charges levelled against the applicant. Further, user ID and password are unique. They can be used only by the Official concerned.
f. The complaints made against him were motivated and made at the instance of the Sub Postmaster, Shri M.Vemana, and the penalty imposed is unfair and unjustified. iv. The applicant states that he had submitted documentary proof in the form of computer-generated reports to disprove the charge levelled against him. But the Appellate Authority, without considering his submissions and without applying his mind judiciously, rejected the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.228/2023 appeal, mechanically. The conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority is not based on any official record/document. His orders are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Hence, this OA.
3. Among the grounds raised by the applicant, it is reiterated that without making thorough investigation, and without duly giving opportunity to the applicant to rebut the allegations, the Disciplinary Authority had issued the charge memo and awarded heavy penalty which is not justified. Such penalty is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. The transaction report clearly shows that the applicant was available in the office right from 09.03 hrs., booking the parcels received at the counter, in addition to attending to the treasury work.
4. The applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court:
a. Collector Sing vs. LML Ltd., Kanpur in Civil Appeal No.10125/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 37619/2012).
Supreme Court intervened and modified the penalty.
b. Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of Director General R.P.F. and Ors. Vs. Ch.Sai Babu on 29 January, 2003 - Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 1437, 2003 (51) BLJR 1653.
Held: All relevant facts have to be considered before awarding penalty.
c. Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India & anr (Civil Appeal Nos. 4715-4716 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.22263-22264 of 2012) Contempt Petition (C) NOs.180-812 of 2013.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.228/2023 Held: that the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias."
5. Respondents have been represented by their counsel and have also filed their reply, wherein, they have contended as follows -
i. Complaint, dt. 20.09.2021, was received from one Sri M.Manoj, Manavelugu Vintage Farmers Organisation, regarding refusal of parcel booking at the Palasa Sub Post Office by the Counter PA. Based on the complaint, the ASPOs, Tekkali Sub-Division, was directed to conduct enquiries. The ASPOs, Tekkali Sub-Division, conducted enquiries and reported, vide letter No. Complaint Case/Palasa SP/2021, dt. 22.09.2021, that -
a. The counter PA, Palasa SO, had refused to book parcels presented by Sri M.Manoj, Manavelugu Vintage Farmers Organisation, and also examination parcels, presented by the Chief Examination Officer and had gone on lunch break.
b. The then SPM, Palasa SO, brought the issue to his (ASPOs Tekkali's) notice and booked the parcels presented by Sri M.Manoj, as well as the examination parcels, and, thus, cleared the work of the Counter PA, due to refusal by the applicant, Sri O.P.Adinarayana, who was the Counter PA, Palasa SO. ii. After going through the connected records and representation of the applicant, final proceedings were issued by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division/Respondent No.5, vide his Memo No. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.228/2023 CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dt. 28.12.2021, awarding the penalty in question.
Thereafter, the Director of Postal Services, Visakhapatnam/Respondent No.3 disposed of the appeal preferred by the applicant by rejecting it, vide RO VM Memo No.ST/13-19/108/OPA/2021, dt. 04.11.2022.
iii. According to the respondents, the applicant refused to book parcels placed before his counter, hence, the Sub Postmaster attended to the work of the applicant, by allocating himself the User ID for booking of parcels and booked the parcels to prevent inconvenience to the public.
This implies that the applicant did not book the parcels.
iv. As seen from the shift-wise transaction report, dt.18.09.2021, of Sri M.Vemana, Sub Postmaster, Palasa SO, it is evident that the Sub Postmaster, Palasa SO, booked a total of nine articles in which 08 articles, pertaining to Sri M.Manoj (Complainant) were booked with the User ID of the Sub Postmaster during the time period from 12:47 to 12:56. It shows that the applicant had not booked the parcels tendered by the complainant.
v. During the course of Departmental Investigation, the allegations framed against the applicant were established. Hence, disciplinary action was initiated against him. No documents were received from the Principal, Govt. Junior College, Palasa, denying the inconvenience caused to them by the applicant. The applicant has made baseless allegations against other individuals/colleagues, instead of rebutting the allegations against him.
vi. The applicant was directed to submit his representation against Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dt. 27.10.2021 of the Supdt. of Post Offices, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.228/2023 Srikakulam, within 10 days of receipt of the said memorandum. The applicant submitted his representation, dt.01.11.2021, wherein he made baseless allegations against his colleagues but did not request for conducting of any inquiry on the allegations framed against him, vide Memo No.CPT/Dlgs/2021-22, dt.27.10.2021. After finalisation of the proceedings, under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the applicant submitted his representation, dt.13.01.2022, to the Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam. Any representation on the final proceedings will be considered as Appeal and, accordingly, the applicant was advised to address the appeal to the Appellate Authority. vii. It is argued that the applicant did not book the parcels tendered at the counter, which can also be testified by the booking of parcels by the Sub Postmaster, Palasa, who attended to the duties of the Sub Postmaster. Handling of two computers by one person is not an impossible task. In this case, the Sub Postmaster allocated the counter user ID to himself for booking of parcels with a view not to cause inconvenience to the public and booked the parcels with his User ID for the Computer System allotted to the Sub Postmaster, Palasa, but not in any other computer system.
viii. On receipt of the complaint from M.Manoj, departmental enquiries were conducted and the statement of the applicant was also obtained, in this regard. After thorough investigation, the disciplinary action was initiated against the applicant as per the rules laid down. Thus, the contention of the applicant that the allegations are false and fictitious, and were made Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.228/2023 at the instance of the Sub Postmaster and that the applicant was kept in the dark is not true and not based on facts.
ix. The allegations framed against the applicant were proved and, accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings were finalized under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence, the order of penalty is not illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
x. Only after thorough examination of all the connected documents and considering the entire documentary evidence, the appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected by the Director of Postal Services, Visakhapatnam/Respondent No.3.
6. Respondents further stated that as there are no merits in the OA filed by the applicant, it is fit to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
8. It is seen from the proceedings, dt.28.12.2021, of the Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Dvn.,/R5 (Disc. Authority) that the charged official, instead of defending himself, made allegations against the complainant and other postal department personnel, which do not disprove the allegations against him in the case in hand. He was awarded penalty as follows:
"....... the disciplinary authority hereby ordered to reduce the pay of Sri O.P.Adinarayana, Postal Assistant, Palasa SO should be reduced by one stage i.e., from Rs.31,400/- to Rs.30,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.2022 for a period of 3 (three) years without cumulative effect and this will not have the effect of postponing of future increments of Pay."Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.228/2023
9. Against the said punishment order, the applicant/charged officer had submitted a letter, dt.13.01.2022, containing what he called, "detailed supplementary explanation cum exactitude evidence", to the disciplinary authority, despite the fact that he had already submitted his detailed explanation to the charge memo on 01.11.2021, on the basis of which, proceedings, dt.28.12.2021, had already been issued. Thereafter, he filed his appeal to the Director of Postal Services, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No.3). The Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal on the ground that he did not find merit in it.
10. The applicant herein has sought quashing of the impugned memos which include the charge memo, the proceedings awarding penalty as well as the rejection order in respect of his appeal.
11. It is well known that the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is rather narrow. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in several decisions, has reiterated the position as can be seen below:
a. In Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana and Others (1989 (2) Supreme Court 177), the Apex Court held 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 Inquiry 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 exclusively within the jurisdiction of the compete nt 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. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.228/2023 evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.
b. In UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia M.Lad, (2010) 5 SCC, the Apex Court opined as follows -
"8. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has come up for consideration before this Court time and again. It is worthwhile to refer to some of these decisions. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India this Court held:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof".
c. In B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It was also held as under:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
12. So far as the procedure followed in the departmental enquiry against the applicant is concerned, there is no apparent error or infirmity. However, on a Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.228/2023 close reading of the observations of the Appellate Authority under the heading -
"Conclusion", it is noticed that the defence of the charged officer in respect of the alleged complaint by Shri Manoj regarding refusal to book parcels presented to the applicant, Sri. O.P.Adinarayana, Postal Assistant, has not been addressed. It is also seen that, in the forwarding letter, dt.24.01.20221 (Ann.R-6), of the appeal, the charged officer/applicant has made a request "to provide an opportunity to be heard in person before disposing of the present appeal."
13. In view of the above, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the matter in its entirety, after giving an opportunity to the charged officer/applicant herein to be heard in person, in the interest of justice, and pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. The OA is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 05.02.2025 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.02.11 12:06:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0