Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
B K Muduli vs D/O Post on 25 September, 2023
ie:
es
GA Ne Se OGe Teg 28
nm
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
DOAN. 2660/0027 2 of 2019
Pronounced on
Reserved on 05.09.2028
CORAM:
HON''BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER {A}
Bijaya Kumar Mudull, aged 36 years, son of Uchhab Mudull,
resident of At-Sunakhala Sahi, FO- Rajsunakhala, PS-
Ranpur, Dist- Nayagarh, Odisha, PIN- 752065, presently
working as PA, Konark $0, Dist- Purl, Pin-7S¢711.
» Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. C.P.Sahan!, Counsel
-Versus-
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary cum
Director General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Defhi-T10001.
2. Odisha Circle, At/PRO-
39. Chief Post Master General,
Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda, Qdisha-751001.
3. Director of Postal Services (Hars), O/o Chief Post Master
General, Gdisha Circle, At/PO- Bhubaneswar, Dist Khurda,
Odisha-7S1LOOL
4. Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Purl Division, Puri, PIN-
752001.
woResporidents
For the respondents: Mr. 5.Behera, Counsel
fod
OA Ma. BHOSOR TELLS
ORDER
Pramod Kumar Das, Member {A};
As it reveals from the record, alleging omission and commission on the part of the applicant in discharging his duties as Postal Assistant, Konark Sub Post Office, charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to the applicant giving him opportunity to submit his reply vide memorandum dated 13.14.2018 (4/3).
2 The sum and substance of the allegations in the memorandum was that the applicant was posted as PA in Konark SO wel 6.07 2015 and during his incumbency he falled to maintain a i register of accounts standing open at Chitreswari BO for checking the receipts of passhooks at his office from: 01.04.2016 and OLDA2017 onwards and for scrutinizing the same on 20.07.2016 and £0.07. 2017 respectively to enable him to prepare a list ef passbooks not received for Interest posting and send to the Inspector of Posts, Nimapara Sub Division for getting such passbooks che .cked through him or through his 0/5 (N fails} in the fleld in terms Rule 75 of POSB Manual Vol. 1 (2012 Edition) read with provision of Rule 5001) of CBS manual 2018, which enabled the GOS BPM of Chitreswari BO to commit fraud/misappropriation to the babel ed Esse ed ~ ©, rine of Rs. L,04,000/-, which could not be detecte xd and recovered from rhe BPM Sri Sarat Kumar Randi.
Secondly, it was alleged that he failed to maintain a register of account standing open at Chitreswari BO for checking the receipts of passbooks at his office from 01.04.2017 and 01.04.2018 onwards and re, pees scrutinizing the same on 20.07.2017 and 20.07.2015 respectively ta enable him to prepare a list ef passbooks net received for interest posting and send to the Inspector of Posts, Nimapara Sub THvishon for getting such passbooks checked throug th him or through his Q/S {Mails} in the field in terms aforesaid rules for which the BPM Sarat Kumar Kandi committed fraud/misappropriation to the tune of Rs. $5,500/- which could not be detected and recovered from him.
The third allegation against the applicant was that he, as SB Assistant, should have compelled the signature on the warrant of payment with that on the application for withdrawal and put his signature on the SB-7 form and placed the same before 4PM, Konark SO for check and signature of the 5PM in terms of Rule 33(6}{a) of POSB the BPM, Sri Kandi, Manual, Vol! (2012 Edition} and, for such failure, a Nes 2H ONS PaxeOR4 Sos.
committed fraud/misappropriation (6 the fme of Rs. 10,000/- which could not be detected and recovered from him Instantly.
3 Gn receipt of the memorandum dated 13.1 4.2018, the applicant yide application dated 22.11.2018 had requested the authorities to allow him 1S days mare time 5 submit his reply after receipt af ten dacuments a5 sought for by hin. Respondents vide letter dated O5.12.2018 supplied the applicant some atthe documents, Some of them were allowed him to peruse in the SO and sume of them were denied for the same being not relevant fe the issue The Divisional Level Investigation report and Circle Level Investigation report sought by the applicant was not supplied as the same were nat prepared. The applicant submitted application dated 22.12.2018 stating unter alla as te how the documents, which were denied te him, were relevant age more supply of which would prejudice his interest. The Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated SF AR2ZO18 intimated the applicant giving him apportunity to peruse some document and stating as co how the other dacuments are not relevant the case. However, the applicant submitted his defence vide ietter dated 07.01.2019 praying to take 8 lenient view and exonerate him from the charges leveled against him.
ST yg 2 3 a PRA Men THAD SSE EE DS REST & OS Na SO etnies gs ENTS The DA after considering the records and the stand point of the applicant, imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,16,000/+ from him an installment @ Rs. 10,000/- per month vide order dated L7AN.2019 (A/S). Applicant submitted appeal an 28.01.2019 (A/S 1}. Thereafter, approached this Tribunal in QA No. 117 f2019, which was disposed of at the admission stage on 22.02.2019 with direction to Appellate Authority to consider appeal and intimate result thereof ina reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the AA considered and rejected the appeal of the applicant vide letter dated 09.04.2019 (A/S 14).
4. Hence, being aggrieved, the applicant has led this OA inter alla praying to quash the ef the charge memo dated 13.1 12018, order of DA dated 17.01.2019 and the order of the AA dated 09.04.2019 with further prayer to direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount with interest.
5. Respondents have filed their counter as well as additional counter contesting the case of the applicant. The applicant has also Hled rejoinder. The points raised by the parties In their respective pleadings would be dealt into infra.
tA Na. 260); SHIST ABIN oh x 6 Aeeording to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, since the duties, alleged to have been failed by the applicant to perform, was never entrusted to him, recovery from him is unjust and improper and, as such, order of recovery from the applicant for the fraud committed by the GDS BPM is illegal. As per rules, recovery can only be done from the vovernment servant if the loss has been caused by him, which is not the present case. It is alleged that the applicant has violated CRS Manual, 2018, which came into effect from 17.07.2018. The transaction, in question, relates to 2017 or prior te that and, thus, alleging violation of the Manual, which came inte effect in 2018, is total non-application of mind. The Rule 75 (1) & fv) which could not be detected and recovered from him of POSS Manual, Voll, provides that the BPM should collect the passbooks and sent te the SO for Interest pasting with the list and it is the duty of the Post Master/SPM of the concerned SO to check, Similarly, 76(b) provides that the SPM to send Ue fist to Inspector of Posts for checking but In none of the rules, a duty is cast upon the PA to do the werk. Thus, the DA and the AA misdirec themselves by observing that if was the duty of the applicant as PA to do the duties as mentioned above but he failed te do. Insofar as violation of ay the provision af Rule 33/6)}{a} of POSB Manual, VoL! is concerned, it has been stated that since the withdrawal did not exceed Rs, 5000/-, was never sent te the SO for checking, hence, question of negligence an the part of the applicant did not arise. it is submitted that the allegation made in Article TH is not clear and definite. In terms of DGPRY sastruction dated 13.12.1981. penalty of recovery can be awarded if the lapses in his part either led to commission of fraud misappropriation or frustrated the inquiry, as a result af which, if has not heen possible to locate the real culprit, which is not the present case. To substantiate the stand that since the charge sheet is vague, the same is not sustainable, Ld. Counsel for the applicant placed into service the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. ¥.P.Education Society & Others, AIR 2013 SC 2098, UO! & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (£009) 12 SCC 785. When the issuance of charge sheet and imposition of punishment before completion of the fact finding DLI and CLI report is had in law. Further, Ld, Counsel for the applicants has taken the support af the decision of the Non'ble Apex fourt in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. UOT & Ors., {2001} 9 SCC 180, to oy oo pene onan seca nnntnnne enna ay snnegnenennnannnnmnnnnngrnnnenmeann ipievnetenennn mS DA No, THU fO027 2/89 substantiate that imposition of punishment without causing Inquiry Is bad in law. He has also relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Khageswar Mohanta Vs. Ol & Ors (OA 103/205), Manmohan Mohapatra Vs, UOL & Ors (OA 3358/2018) and others to fustify that recovery for contributory negligence is de hors the law. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench in tre case of Md. Kateefuddin Vs. UG! & Ors (OA 1091/2013) to substantiate the stand that recovery from the applicant, who is not directly responsible for the misappropriation is not sustainable In the eyes of law Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has prayed for the relief claimed in the OA.
7. Per contra, placing reliance on the stand point taken im the counterfadditional counter, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicant has been working as Postal Assistant of Konark SO since 06.07.2015 and was entrusted the work of Savings Bank Branch of Konark SO functioning of CBS platform. In terms of the rules, the hasic work in the SB Branch was to scrutinize the warrant of payment received from subordinate branch post offices under Konark SO and put his signature on the warrant of payment In token of i \\¥ 3 GA Ne. BER AIST SSRIS verification and, thereafter, would place the matter before the SPM for disposal. It is contended that under the rules, the applicant was required to maintain the register of account standing in Branch offices under his jurisdiction for checking the receipts of passbooks by July every year so as to enable him to prepare a list of passbooks not received for interest posting. Thereafter, the applicant as BA was to submit the details of passbooks nat sent by the concerned BO to the Sub-divisional Heads concerned for arranging submission of those passhooks. It was his duty to bring any irregularity or illegality noticed to the knowledge of the supervisor but the applicant utterly failed to pay his devotion to duty, which is unbecoming on the part of a eavernment servant leading to com mitting freud/misappropriation by the GDS BPM. It is contended that the fraud/ misappropriation committed by the BPM for the fallure on the part of the applicant to discharge his duties as per rules was aiso established at DLE and CLI snes a ayel. ft has heen submitted that issuance of charge sheet and punishment before completion of the investigation cannot be faulted with. La, Counsel for the respondents has also denied the stand taken by the applicant that he was never entrusted the duties, which he failed to 1G OA Na. 260/002 72/2019 discharge, for which punishment was imposed. As a PA, it was his obligatary duty ta perform the duties stated to have been faded, Similarly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that although a right was available to the applicant to seek for a regular inquiry under the rules but the applicant failed to availed the same and only when the decision was taken against him, this plea that he was impased with the punishment of recovery without Inquiry is nothing but misnomer. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the decisions cited by Ld. Counsel for the applicant was without taking Into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar and Anr. Vs. Post Master General and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. G7 73-G776 of 2016 disposed of on 07.02.2022 and, therefore, imposition of punishment for the fraud /misappropriate committed by the BPM due te the failure on the part of the applicant to discharge Is obligatory duty cannot be faulted with and those decisions have no application in the present case, Last but net the least, it was submitted by the Ld Counsel for the respondents that judicial review of the administrative decision in the matter of disciplinary proceedings Is permissible to the extent where the punishment was imposed in violation of the rules or principle 34 Pe er LO AE Fea iA SA No. 260/002 7 272019 of natural justice. In the Instant case, there being no such eventuality, -- Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
8. Lhave considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the materials placed an records so also the rules and decisions relied on. | think it just and proper to take the extract of the defence statement submitted by the applicant on O7AL.2019 to the charge memo, which reads as under:
"fij} In Article 1 of the Memo of charges | have been charged of not discharging My duty as required under Rule 75 of POSB Manual VOL- read with Rule 50 (i) of CRS Manual 2018, In this connection Lam to submit that Rule 75 of POSB Manual VOL-1 and Rule 50 of CBS Manual 2018 mandate various responsibility for different officials/ officers right from the Branch post master to head of circle, But in fact at no stage or at no point of time any portion of these rules are carried out in any offices in our postal circle, leave alone our Division. These rules prescribe duties for BPM, SO, Head of the Division and Head of the circle to carry out preventive measures to watch over non receipt of SB passhooks for entry of interest, The role of the 50 shall begin ently after the list of Accounts standing at the BO are received at the $0 as prescribed under Rule 75- 1 (iv) of POSB Manual VOL-1. But no such list was received at Konark SO not only from Chitreswari BO but from any of the BOs under Konark SO. Therefore there was no scope on part of the SO to correctly know the details of valid account stand at the BO and the accounts which AY SOR RE CERRY OS GA Mo. ZOU 0027 2)
--
ino were not received for interest posting, Right from apening of Konark $0 not a single BO has even submitted any such list to Konark SO as a result of which it was not possible to maintain any such register. None of the inspecting or wisiting officers even questioned or directed for compulsory submission Nst by the BQs to enable the SQ to prepare and maintaining the register. Therefore | as Postal Asst, was nat competent to enforce the BO to pravide the list to the SO for Preparation and maintenance of the register, Rule 75-4
(vi) further provides that the work of Preparation of the Het of accounts by the BO, checking by PM/SPM and preparation of BO wise Register Is an one time job and once it is prepared, its updation is to be made once new account is Gpened and accounts are closed / transferred ete. But when there was no list received from the BO to prepare the register right from the date of opening of the SO for more than half a century by now there was no scope to update the prescribed register Therefore | deny the Article-1 of the charge sheet, It is further to intimate that as | was net in duty as PA Konark 50 for the period from 24/09/2015 to 12/12/2015 as I was on induction training at PTC darbhanga.
Article-ii That as regards to alleged forged withdrawal in SB A/c na- 9636407906 { am to state that | have done my assigned job which I am required to do as PA Konark SO. With migration to CBS the provision Of Rules in FOSB Manual VOL-1 became obsolate for CBS Offices. Much before 04/05/2018 and 08/05/2018 Konark so was migrated to CBS As regards to alleged forged withdrawal in the above SB Aceounts | am to state that I have correctly verified the signature appearing on the withdrawal form with the 2019 ae OA Ma SAAS 27 2/2079 specimen available in the system without any discrepancy, So 1] put the same before the SPM who also confirmed the same. But new the said two withdrawal have been termed as fraud without any GEQD opinion. | reiterate that I correctly verified the signature with SB-7 form with that of the specimen and therefore deny the Article-il of the Memo of charges.
Articles - i i firmly refute the Article-iii of the memo of charge In this connection | beg to reiterate my stand Vis-d-vis the Article
-L.where in | explained everything to counter the charge. The charges in Article -I and ifi are almost the same except the particulars of accounts and transaction. The position of rue and mandate responsibility of various levels remain the same. So I deny the Articles-iii of the memv of charges in view of my submission made in respect of Article-1 of the Memo of charges Prayer In above circumstance, | most fervently pray before my SSPOs to kindly go through my above Submission with a lenient view free me from the charges levelled against me and for which act of kindness | shall remain ever erateful"
(Emphasis added}
9. Going through the defence reply of the applicant quated above and the stand point presently taken, this Tribunal finds that the points now taken was not taken before the DA. The DGP&T Circular dated 13.02.1981 relied by the applicant in this regard provides that inquirles could be made to locate the stage at which particular fraud has been 8 DA Ne Shay Ode y afeOy8 committed by a particular person but this circular has no appli cation to the preset case because, in the Instant case, in the charge sheet the respondents have elaborately stated the stages where the GDS BPM had committed the fraud, which could not be detected due to failure on the part of the applicant to discharge his onerous duties provided under the - rules, The rule clearly provides that in the case of proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the government by negligence or breach of orders by a government servant, the penalty af recovery ean be imposed only when itis established that the government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss. The breach and negligence is the sole point of allegation against the applicant.
10, It is not out of place to mention, as repeatedly held by this Tribunal, that Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 196 clearly provides the manner in which proceeding to be taken up and concluded against the a Govt. Servant. Nowhere in the rules, it has been provided that In each and every proceedings taken up under Rule 16 the authority is under obligation to conduct an inquiry in the manner to be followed when ie: OA No. 260/009 2/2019 proceedings under Rule 14 is taken up. In the said rules, an opportunity is available to be delinquent to seek for an inquiry. But in the Instant case the applicant did not seek for the same and tried his fate at the hands of the authorities and when he has been imposed with the punishment he has came with a plea that imposition of punishment without inquiry is not sustainable. Therefore, this Tribunal is not impressed on the said submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. 11, The stand of the applicant since he had not committed any fraud and fraud was committed by GDS BPM but he has been imposed with the punishment for his contributory negligence and imposition of punishment for contributory negigence Is not sustainable as already held by this Tribunal in the cases of Khageswar Mohanta (supra) and others are concerned, it may be stated that on a juxtaposing reading of the records, it is established that the applicant has been imposed with the punishment for his negligence/breach in discharging his duties leading to committing huge amount of fraud by the GDS BPM, Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Pradeep Kumar and Anr. Vs. Post Master | General and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nas. 8775-8776 of 2016 disposed of on 07.02.2022, has held as under:
16 OA Na, 2hOfO027 2 Ai S weg 39, Now, we advert to the second issue as to whether the respondents would be lable for the wrongs and act of MLR.
Singh, respondent No. 4, in connivance or at the behest of Rukhsana. We begin by noting that MLK. Singh is not a third person but an officer and an employee of the Past Office. Post Office, as an abstract entity, functions through its employees. Employees, as individuals, are capable of being dishonest and committing acts of fraud or wrongs themselves or in collusion with others. Such acts of bank/past office employees, when done during thelr course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person who ts damnified by the fraud and wrongful acts of the officers of the bank/post office. Such acts of bank/post office employees being within thelr course of employment will give a night to the appellants to legally proceed for Injury, as this is their only remedy against the post office. Thus, the post office, like a bank, can and is entitled to proceed against the officers for the loss caused due to the fraud etc., but this would not absolve them from their liability if the 20 See Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Durga Devi and Others (1977} SCC Online Del 93 employee involved was acting in the course of his employment and duties.
38. This Court in State Bank of India (Successor to the Imperial Bank of India) v. Smt. Shyama Devi2t held that for the employer to be Hable, it is not enough that the employment afforded the servant or agent an opportunity of committing the crime, but what is relevant is whether the crime, in the form of fraud etc, was perpetrated by the servant/employee during the course of his employment. Once this ig established, the employer would be Mable for the employee's wrongful act, even if they amount to a crime, Whether the fraud is committed during the course of employment would be a question of fact that needs to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case,"
a ? oA No. ae Eu fa
12. tis seen that the decisions reached by this Tribunal in the case relied on by the applicant were without taking Into consideration the decisions referred to above. Hence, the said decision in the facts and circumstances of the case is not applicable to the present case.
b
43. Rule 1ifiii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides for recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by bim to the Government by negligence or breach of orders, 1b is worthwhile to note that hard-earned money of poor citizens and taxpayers cannot be allowed to he defrauded due to failure to discharge the onerous duty by the employee concerned, who Is supposed to be responsible and to see that there is no misappropriation and fraud is committed by any individuals. In the instant case, the applicant was not charge sheeted for committing fraud by himself but for his utter failure to discharge the duties in accordance with rules, which enabled the GDSBPM of the BO to committee the fraud. Therefore, this Tribunal is ata loss to hold the loss caused to the public exchequer due to faitare on the part of the applicant to discharge his duty with due devation and in accordance with rules in any manner is egal or arbitrary. it is significant at this stage to note that the Tribunal is not the appellate authority over the 18 QA Nw. BOO MORTE SAIS decision taken by the authority competent. The Tribunal is only concerned relating to the decision making process of the matter. When the authority took note of all the points and ultimately came to conclusion that discharge of duty of the applicant was not in acca rdance with the rules in a well discussed order, Interference In the order would tantamount to encroaching upon the domain of the authorities mn violation of the law of the land relating to interference of the Tribunal in the disciplinary proceedings.
14. Insofar as the stand of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the transaction, in question, relates to the year 2017 and prior to that and, thus, imposition of punishment alleging violation of the Manual, which came into effect in 2019 is total non-application of mind is concerned, if may be recorded that when it is established that the applicant failed to discharge his duties as per Rule 75 (1103) & (iv), for which the concemmed BPM defrauded the department and that could not be detected in time, the negligence of the applicant being palpable, this stand of the applicant is rejected. The applicant based on the charge sheet submitted his reply and at no point of time such a plea was raised before the authority concerned. This itself establishes that the assertion pee 423 OA Ne 26GMOL 2/2018 of the applicant that the charge is vague Is reminiscence and cannot be accepted. However, on perusal of the allegation, it is seen that the stand that the charges are vague is not well convincing atall.
15. tis settled law that the power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. it is te ensure failmess In treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based en 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 is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, judicial interference is warranted, To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness er reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. Further, itis well settled that the Court and Tribunal in exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review would not 20 DA Noa. ZAG /HNe FL eOLs interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, Le, 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 that 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 (Deputy General Manager .. VS Ajai Kumar Srivastava , (202 1)2SCC 612,). No such case has been made out by the Applicant either in his defence submitted to the charge Memo nor in his appeal or before this Tribunal requiring this Tribunal te interference in the matter.
16. The grounds upon which the applicant has sought this Tribunal to interfere are hardly of any use as per the discussions made above. The above view is fortified by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of india Vs. P.Gunasekharan, 2015 (2) SCC page 610, where the Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold as under:
powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture inte re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether aj The enquiry is held by a competent authority, GA Na. S60 /QU2FEfL019 Bs pow b} The enquiry 15 neld 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 fo the evidence and merits of the case;
é}) The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by srrelevant or extraneous considerations; § The conchision, on the very face of if, Is So wholly arbitrary and capricious that ne 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 inffuenced he finding;
i) The finding of fact is based an no evidence."
17. 'Phe above view is also fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Anr., 1996 AIR AB4, wherein it has been held as under:
""ludicial review is notan appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power af judicial review is meant To ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural fustice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on Some evidence, the authority entrusted bot OA No. POUfMET 2/29 Ra with the pawer to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based an some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and canclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitied te hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not acl as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its awn independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conchision or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would nave ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each cases
18 In wiew of the discussions made above, | find no merit in this OA which is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own COSES.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) MEMBER (ADMN.) RRUPS