Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Raj Narayan Yadav vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2025
(Reserved on 11.07.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad
Original Application NO. 1629 of 2014
This the 23RD day of July, 2025.
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Raj Narayan Yadav S/o Late Kashi Yadav , R/o Mohalla 442 B Kawabagh
Railway Colony, Gorakhpur 273012.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Sri A.K. Yadav
Versus
1. Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (Revisional Authority),
North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, (Appellate Authority),, North
Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
3. Senior Divisional Signal and Telecommunication Engineer
(Disciplinary Authority) North Eastern Railway.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Pramod Kumar Rai
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned orders dated 04.12.2014, 17.04.2013 and 06.02.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Revisional Authority), passed by the respondent No. 2 (Appellate Authority) and also passed by respondent No. 3 (Disciplinary Authority) respectively by means of which they have reverted the applicant on the post of senior clerk to the pay scale of 5200-20200 + 2800 grade pay from the present post of office Superintendent and also reverted pay band and grade pay.
MANISH KUMAR
(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may SRIVASTAVA deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(iii) Award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant".2
2. The brief facts of the case are that the The applicant was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk and joined duty on 30.04.1992 in the office of the Senior Section Engineer (Signals), North Eastern Railway, Siwan. Thereafter, he was transferred to the office of the Senior Section Engineer (Signals), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur in 1993. He was promoted as Senior Clerk and subsequently as Head Clerk in the year 2008. A charge sheet was issued to the applicant, to which he submitted a reply on 20.12.2011. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 31.10.2012. The applicant filed his written brief on 12.09.2012, but the same was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned punishment order dated 06.02.2013. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected on 17.04.2013. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the applicant filed a revision petition. However, the Revisional Authority rejected the same without considering the grounds raised and without passing a reasoned and speaking order on 17.07.2013. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 1061/2013 before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2014 with a direction to the Revisional Authority to decide the revision afresh. In compliance with the said order, the Revisional Authority again rejected the revision petition. Being aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.
3. The respondents stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant had earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing OA No. 1061/2013, which was disposed of on 31.07.2014 with a direction to the Revisional Authority to decide the revision petition afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Tribunal did not set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority, meaning thereby those orders were found to be valid and legally sustainable. In compliance with the said directions, the Revisional Authority reconsidered the matter and passed a fresh reasoned order, clearly indicating the duration of the punishment as from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017. The Revisional Authority, after considering MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA the entire material on record, passed a reasoned order in accordance with law. Hence, the punishment orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, 3 Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority are well reasoned, supported by evidence, and free from any illegality or procedural infirmity. Therefore, the Original Application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
5. We have heard Shri A.K Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that allegation leveled against the applicant are false. Although he travelled from train in question on the date disclosed in the article of charges yet he never impersonate himself as Vigilance Inspector. He was possessing pass issued by the Railways. When applicant asked to the concerned TTE for a berth, due to this reason he was falsely implicated in this case. On supply of the chargesheet, applicant submitted his reply but the same have not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. It was next argued that entire prosecution case is based on hearsay evidence. Material witness who has informed to the witness Manish Kumar Dubey about the conduct of the applicant namely the GRPF personnel were not examined in this matter. Thus, statement made by witness Manish Kumar Dubey cannot be relied upon. Similarly statement of O.P Srivastava is also not reliable as he had stated in his statement that applicant checked the ticket of passenger. Since statement of passengers have not been recorded, thus, on this ground also entire prosecution case becomes false. Witness Sri S.N Srivastava who was also traveling in the train in question had sent/forwarded the report to the Headquarter but he did not mention in his report that applicant checked the ticket of the passenger or cash of the TTE. Punishment imposed upon the applicant is exorbitant and is not commensurate to the gravity of evidence.
MANISH KUMAR Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as SRIVASTAVA Revisional Authority are non-speaking, unreasoned and without application 4 of mind. In none of the aforesaid orders, authority concerned have discussed the evidence adduced by the parties. Pair enquiry has not been conducted. Date from which punishment will start have not been specified, thus, on this count punishment imposed upon the applicant is not sustainable. Provision contained in several letters/OM/instruction issued by the Railway Department time to time have not been followed. In fact it is a no evidence case, thus, argued to allow the OA and set aside the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws:-
(i) Chatrapal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11975 of 2019 decided on 15.02.2024.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that applicant had approached before this Tribunal through OA No. 1061/2013, which was decided on 31.7.2014 with a direction to decide the revision petition moved by the applicant afresh by a detailed and reasoned order. Although applicant had challenged the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority but Tribunal only set aside the order passed by the revisional authority meaning thereby orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority were found correct. It is also argued that in compliance with the direction given in the aforesaid OA, Revisional Authority has decided the revision afresh and has disclosed the starting date of the punishment i.e. 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017. Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the material points and charges leveled against the applicant are proved with their statement. Minor contradiction occurred in their statement do not destroy the material issue. It was also argued that applicant in his defence brief has clearly admitted that he was traveling in the train in question on the date disclosed in the charge. He asked for a berth from TTE concerned but with ulterior motive took him before the conductor namely O.P Srivastava. Both the aforesaid TTE and conductor as well as Vigilance Inspector traveling in the same coach namely S.N. Srivastava were present there and they handed over to the applicant to CRPF. Aforesaid fact itself make it clear that MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA applicant has admitted the material point except impersonation. Fact of impersonation is proved from the statement of witness Manish Kumar 5 Dubey as well as O.P Srivastava, if police personnel have not been examined in the matter, the statement of prosecution witnesses examined in the matter cannot be disbelieved. Thus, argued that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority are based on evidence and in accordance with law. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order, thus, OA lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
9. Before discussing the submission raised on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to quote the relevant paragraph of the case law of Chatrapal (supra), which runs as under:-
"12. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of 10 guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered as held in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran3, State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh4 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu5. In P. Gunasekaran (supra), the following has been held by this Court in para nos. 12, 13, 16 & 17:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
6(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.
16. These principles have been succinctly summed up by the living legend and centenarian V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298] . To quote the unparalleled and inimitable expressions: (SCC p. 493, para 4) "4. ... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian 2 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 textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good." (emphasis supplied)
17. In all the subsequent decisions of this Court up to the latest in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38, these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering anything."
13. Having considered the entire material available on record and keeping in view that the appellant is a Class-IV employee against whom charge no. 1 was found proved on the basis of perverse finding and charge no. 2 is only about sending the representation to the High Court directly without availing the r channel, we deem it appropriate to set- aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order dated 30.04.2007 whereby the appellant was terminated from service. Consequently, the appellant is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The appeal is allowed."
10. It will also be useful to quote the substance of charges leveled against the applicant:-
अनुल नक ।
ी राजनारायण यादव, कायाधी, सीसेई/ सगनल/छपरा के व ध वर चत आरोप आरोप का सारः-
ी राजनारायण यादव, कायाधी, सीसेई ( सगनल) छपरा वष 2011 म न न ल खत कदाचार के दोषी पाये गये ।
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 " ी राजनारायण यादव, कायाधी, सीसेई ( सगनल) / छपरा ने दनांक 27.01.11 को े न नं0 15007 अप म कोच क ड टर से अपना प रचय डी0एस0ट 0ई0 बताकर बथ क मांग क , उसके प चात ् एस-1 कोच म जाकर ट 0ट 0ई0 से भी अपना प रचय सतकता नर क बताते हुए कैश चेक कराने को कहा और या य का टकट चेक कया ।"
ी राजनारायण यादव, का उपरो त कृ य रे ल क छ व धू मल करने के साथ-साथ इनक स य न ठा एवं क वयपरायणता को भी सं द ध बनाता है । जो एक रे ल सेवक से अपे त सामा य यवहार को भी तकूल है।
ी राजनारायण यादव वारा कृ य रे ल सेवक (आचरण) नयम 1966 के नयम 3.1(i), 3. 1 (ii) एवं 3.1 (iii) का उ लंघन कया है ।
(वी0 के0 संह) मं सदईू /वाराणसी अनुशास नक अ धकार अनल ु नक-11 ी राजनारायण यादव, कायाधी, सीसेई ( सगनल) / छपरा के व ध वर चत आरोप ी राजनारायण यादव, कायाधी, सीसेई ( सगनल) / छपरा वष 2011 के प म काय करते हुए न न ल खत कदाचार और अनाचार कयाः-
दनांक 27.01.11 को े न नं0 15007 अप म ी राजनारायण यादव, कायाधी, सीसेई ( सगनल)/छपरा ने कोच क ड टर ी ओ०पी० ीवा तव को अपना प रचय डी0एस0ट 0ई0 के प म दया और ब ती टे शन तक के लए बथ क माँग क । उपरो त कथन को ी ओ० पी० ीवा तव ने दनांक 14.03.11 को ी राजनारायण यादव के साथ कराये गये स मख ु ीकरण के न सं0 1 (आर. य.ू डी/03) म प ट कया है । कोच क ड टर ने ए-1 के बथ नं0 5 पर भेज दया जो ब ती से एडवा स म बु ड थी । वथ नं0 5 पर बथ नं 6 का या ी युचुअल के लए बैठा था िजसे दे खकर ी राजनारायण यादव ल पर कोच क तरफ चले गये। वहाँ जाकर ी यादव ने एस-1 के ट 0ट 0ई0 ी मनीष कुमार दब ू े को अपना प रचय सतकता नर क के प म दया तथा ी मनीष कुमार दब ू े को अपना कोच सह कर लेने का नदश दे ते हुए अगले कोच म चले गये । उपरो त कथन को ी मनीष कुमार दब ू े ने दनांक 30.08.11 को ी राजनारायण यादव के साथ कराये गये स मख ु ीकरण के न सं0 2 एवं 4 (आर.य.ू डी. /05) म प ट कया है । उसके प चात ् फर एस-1 म आए और या य को टकट चेक कया और ी मनीष कुमार दब ू े से कैश चेक कराने को कहा शक होने पर ी मनीष कुमार दब ू े ने कोच क ड टर ी ओ०पी० ीवा तव के साथ जब ी यादव से पछ ू ताछ क तो उ ह ने अपना नाम राजनारायण यादव, पु व० काशीनाथ यादव, ाम-कु डौल , थाना- मईल, िजला दे व रया का रहने वाला बताया ।
ी ओ०पी० ीवा तव एवं ी मनीष कुमार दब
ू े चल टकट पर क वय वारा उ त गाडी म
या ा कर रहे मु य सतकता नर क ी एस. एन. ीवा तव को इसके संबध
ं म सू चत करते
हुए यह पछू ा गया क या उनके साथ कोई अ य सतकता नर क भी या ा कर रहे ह के संबध
ं
म पछू ने पर ी ीवा तव वारा क गयी पछ ू ताछ
म पता चला क कोई यि त अपने को सतकता नर क बता रहे है । उ त यि त से ी
ीवा तव वारा भी पछ
ू ताछ क गयी। पछ
ू ताछ म उ त यि त ने अपना नाम राजनारायण
यादव, पु व० काशीनाथ यादव, ाम कु डौल , थाना मईल, िजला-दे व रया बताया । त काल
MANISH KUMAR इसक सच
ू ना ी ीवा तव वारा अपने उ च अ धका रय को द गयी। स म अ धकार के
SRIVASTAVA
नदश पर इसके संबध
ं म एक संयु त नोट (आर, यू. डी. /01) बनाया गया ।
8
ी यादव के पास थम ेणी का सु वधा पास सं0 139411 जो हावडा से ज मत ू वी तथा वापसी दनांक 20.5.11 तक वै य था तथा सीसेई/ सगनल/सीट सी वारा जार कया गया था। कोच क ड टर ी ओ०पी० ीवा तव वारा कोट जी0आर0पी0 को मेमो दे कर वा ते उ चत कानन ू ी कायवाह ी राजनारायण यादव के ब ती रे लवे टे शन पर सप ु द ु कया गया ।
गाडी सं या 15007 अप म दनांक 27/28. 01. 2011 को कायरत क ड टर ी ओ०पी०
ीवा तव एवं चल टकट पर क ी मनीष कुमार दब
ू े के स मख
ु ीकरण से प ट है क ी
राजनारायण यादव वारा अपने पद का द ु पयोग करते हुए रे ल क छ व धू मल करने के साथ- साथ इनक स य न ठा एवं कत यपरायणता को भी सं द ध बनाता है । जो एक रे ल सेवक से अपे त सामा य यवहार के भी तकूल है ी राजनारायण यादव वारा कृ य रे ल सेवक (आचरण) नयम 1966 के नयम 3.1(i), 3. 1 (ii) एवं 3.1 (iii) का उ लंघन कया है ।
(वी0 के0 संह) मं सदईू /वाराणसी अनुशास नक अ धकार "
11. In this matter as is evident from the record that on supply of the chargesheet, applicant was asked to give his reply. He has availed the same, thereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed and the Inquiry Officer proceeded to enquire the matter in accordance with rules and law. Prosecution has examined O. P Srivastava and Manish Kumar Dubey, who were Chief TTE and TTE. Prosecution has also examined Shri S.N. Srivastava the Chief Vigilance Inspector. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have proved the documentary evidence and were also cross examined by the defence. Although applicant has not examined as witness in this matter yet he has submitted defence submission under Rule 9 (19) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. He was also interrogated by the Inquiry Officer under Rule 9 (21) of the aforesaid Rule and he has also submitted his written brief under Rule 9 (22) of the aforesaid Rule then and then only Inquiry Officer analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties have formed opinion that charges leveled against the applicant are proved. An appeal was preferred, which was decided on 17.4.2013. Although appellate order is cryptic in nature but orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority were challenged by the applicant earlier through OA No. MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 1061/2013, which was decided on 31.7.2014 only with the direction to decide the revision afresh, setting aside the order passed by the revisional 9 authority. No direction was given in the aforesaid OA to decide the appeal afresh nor any direction was given to the Disciplinary Authority to pass afresh order. In that circumstances, we are of the view that appellate order on the ground of cryptic and unreasoned cannot be interfered with.
12. Before proceeding with the submission raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the provision of para 6 (iii) and (iv) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules:-
"iii Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government or Railway Administration by negligence or breach of orders.
v Withholding of increments of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period this will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay".
13. First issue raised on behalf of the applicant is that entire prosecution case is based on heresay evidence. In this respect, we have minutely perused the statement of witnesses examined on behalf of the Presenting Officer. Fact of impersonation by the applicant as Vigilance inspector has been consistently stated by the witnesses O.P. Srivastava and Manish Kumar Dubey. There is no contradiction on this point in their statement. Whether applicant checked the tickets of passenger or not, is not material and is not adversely affect the statement of witness Manish Kumar Dubey as well as O P Srivastava on the point of impersonation. Non-mentioning of the fact of impersonation in the report submitted by the S.N Srivastava will also not adversely affect the statement of Manish Kumar Dubey as well as O.P Srivastava. We have also gone through the defence statement as well as defence brief submitted on behalf of the applicant and found that almost all the fact except the impersonation have been admitted by the applicant. Fact of impersonation finds support with the statement of Manish Kumar Dubey, who was the TTE in S-1 coach of the train in question and witness OP Srivastava was the conductor. Fact of impersonation made by the applicant claiming himself to be the Vigilance Inspector has been made by him from both the aforesaid witnesses on different time. Thus, finding arrived at by MANISH KUMAR the Inquiry Officer on this point is not liable to be interfered with and SRIVASTAVA statement of these prosecution witnesses on the material point cannot be 10 disbelieved only on this ground that police personnels who have also stated that applicant impersonated himself as Vigilance Inspector before them have not been examined in the matter. It is pertinent to mention here that in disciplinary proceeding standard of proof of a fact is preponderance of probability. Thus, on the basis of evidence available in the matter, we are of the view that finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on the point of impersonation is based on correct appreciation of evidence and same is not based on only hearsay evidence. Plea taken by the applicant is not acceptable. It is pertinent to mention that if there is some probative value of the hearsay evidence, same can be relied upon in disciplinary enquiry as has been held in Ratan Singh (supra) case.
14. As far as duration of the punishment imposed upon the applicant is concerned, if the punishment described in Rule 6 (iii) and (iv) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 as has been quoted hereinabove are compared with the punishment imposed in this matter, applicant was reverted from the present grade pay and pay band to the lower grade pay of clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 GP Rs. 2800/- for 3 years with non-cumulative effect. In the original order passed by the disciplinary authority duration of punishment has been specified. Order specifying the starting date of punishment by the reviewing authority can only be implemented if punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has been implemented immediately after the order or order has not been implemented, we are of the view that if punishment has already been implemented then order specifying the starting date by the revisional authority is infructuous.
15. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is very limited. The Court or Tribunal can interfere only if there is a violation of principles of natural justice, a breach of statutory rules, or if it is a case of no evidence. The Tribunal or the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority.
MANISH KUMAR
16. Although Union of India is necessary party yet applicant has not SRIVASTAVA arrayed Union of India as respondents for the reasons discussed hereinabove 11 and the result of the OA proposed to be passed. We do not think appropriate to direct the applicant to array Union of India as respondents. The OA is decided in absence of Union of India itself.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. U.O.I. & ors. reported in 1995(6) SCC 749 again has been pleased to observe that "the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings the Court are not competent and cannot appreciate the evidence."
18. In another case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Upendra Singh reported in 1994(3)SCC 357 has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary enquiry is very limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be."
19. As stated above, the Tribunal or Court does not have the authority to act as an appellate body over the decision made by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal or Court cannot replace its judgment or perspective with that of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority holds the discretion to decide on the appropriate punishment as deemed fit and proper based on the circumstances. The Tribunal or Court may intervene in the punishment imposed only if it is "shockingly disproportionate," indicating that the punishment must be grossly excessive or arbitrary to warrant interference. The applicant is required to clearly specify the shortcomings in the inquiry process. It must also be demonstrated that the disciplinary authority and the inquiry officer did not adhere to due process of law. The MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA revisional order also cannot be stated as a "non-speaking order." The 12 aforesaid revisional order appears to have been passed after considering the relevant material facts on record and it indicate that it is neither arbitrary nor lacking in reasoning. Since the applicant has failed to prove procedural lapses or lack of consideration of material facts, there is no basis for challenging the disciplinary proceedings or the revisional order.
20. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Punishment imposed upon the applicant is also not shockingly disproportionate. Thus, OA lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs. All pending MAs disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA