Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Nagaraju U D vs Department Of Posts on 11 March, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00423/2024
Order reserved on : 24.2.2025
Date of Order:11.3.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Nagaraju U.D.,
W/o Late Dasabalaiah,
Aged 37 years, working as
GDS MD (Speed Post).
Vidyaranyapura SO,
Bengaluru-560 097.
Residing at Quarter No. 455.
Near Police Station, Urdigere PO,
Tumakuru-572 140 ......Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Postmaster General,
Bengaluru (HQ) Region,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.18
10:17:46+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Bengaluru West Division,
Bengaluru-560 086.
4. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bengaluru West Sub-Division,
Jalahalli HPO,
Bengaluru-560 013. .....Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for Respondents 1 to 4)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"(a) To quash (a) Order No. F/CAT/2021/UDN dated at Bengaluru-
560086 the 13.02.2024, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure-A5 and (b) Memo No. BGR/VIG/15-3/2020 dtd at Bengaluru the 08.07.2024, issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure-A8,
(b) direct the respondents to treat the period of absence of the applicant from the 21.08.2020, the date of his removal from service till the date of his rejoining the duty, as the period spent on duty with the extension of consequential benefits accordingly and
(c) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 3 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
2. This Original Application has been filed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraph 5(i) to 5(iii) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case as mentioned by the applicant are that the applicant, working as GDS MD (Speed Post), Vidyaranyapura S.O.. Bengaluru, was proceeded with disciplinary action under Rule 10 of the GDS (C&E) Rules 2011, on the allegation that he has irregularly delivered 24 Speed Post Passports from November 2013 to 2014 to the addressees vide memo dated 29.12.2015. The disciplinary proceedings led to several proceedings one after another with imposition of various penalties culminating with the order of his removal from service, which was confirmed by the respondent No.2 by an order dated 23.02.2021.
3. The applicant challenged the said order before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ΟΑ/170/00225/2021. This Hon'ble Tribunal disposed of OA/170/00225/2021 setting aside the orders of penalty imposed on the applicant and restoring the case to the respondent No.3 to take appropriate decision with regard to the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the applicant having regard to the fact that the other official who played a major role in the case, was let off with the penalty of censure. However, instead of complying with the direction SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 4 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the respondent No.3 re-appreciated the evidence and imposed the penalty on the applicant by an order dated 13.02.2024 reducing his TRCA to a lower stage in the TRCA slab for 4 years with further directions that he will not earn annual increase during the period of reduction and on expiry of the reduction period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increases of his TRCA. Further, the period of absence of removal from service from 21.08.2020 till re-joining the duty is to be treated as such. The appeal filed by the applicant against the said order has been rejected by the respondent No.2. Hence this Original Application has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to revise the penalty imposed on him on par with that of the other official who was censured for the same misconduct in pursuance of the earlier order of this Tribunal.
4. On notice, the official respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 24.2.2025. Shri.Javarayi Gowda representing Shri.A.R.Holla for the applicant and SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 5 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for respondent Nos.1 to 4 were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.
7. The short question for our consideration is whether the imposed penalty is proper in the impugned order dated 13.2.2024 wherein the operative part of the order mentioned that the TRCA of the applicant be reduced to a lower stage in the TRCA slab for a period of 4 (Four) years with further directions that he will not earn annual increase during the period of reduction and on expiry of the reduction period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increases of his time related continuity allowance.
8. Against the said order, a revision petition has also been filed by the applicant and the Appellate Authority, vide their order dated 8.7.2024, after examining all the facts, passed an order confirming the earlier order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.2.2024. Accordingly, the revision petition of the applicant was rejected. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 6 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
9. We have carefully gone through both the orders, they are speaking and considered various aspects of the case. Let us examine one by one the contentions of the applicant in paragraph 5 of the Original Application.
10. In paragraph 5(i), the applicant submits that the impugned order of penalty imposed on the applicant is contrary to the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA/170/00225/2021. In para 9 of the said order (Annexure-A1) this Hon'ble Tribunal has observed that though the lapses on the part of Shri. J.N. Jagadeesha are held to be serious, assuring good work in future, taking a lenient view, he was punished by censuring him. Whereas the applicant was punished by removing him from service though his complicity in the same case was of minor in nature. Accordingly, this Hon'ble Tribunal held that the quantum of punishment of removal from engagement imposed on the applicant cannot be held to be justifiable and requires reconsideration by the disciplinary authority (respondent No.2, herein). Now, the applicant has been imposed a major penalty in terms of the impugned order, Annexure-A5 and the appeal filed by the applicant against the said order has been rejected by the respondent SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 7 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE No.2 by an order dated 08.07.2024. As such, the impugned orders, Annexure-A5 and Annexure-A8 are liable to be set aside.
11. In the afore mentioned ground, the only basis is the observations in the Tribunal's earlier order in O.A No.170/225/2021 and no other evidences or grounds have been shown as to how Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha's case is related to the case of the applicant and how the applicant's lapses or misconduct are less than that of Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha vis-a -vis the article of charges framed against the applicant, or how in Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha's case, he got only censure order etc. We have no details about Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha's case before us in this case file in the Original Application. Hence, no meaningful comparison between the two cases can be drawn based on available facts before us. If the applicant presumes that Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha had any role in delivery of post, then it is not clear what his role was in the delivery, as the articles of charge relate to only about irregular delivery of post, for which squarely the applicant was the responsible person. Although the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11th Oct 2023 available in the file, it can be indirectly gleaned that there was one C.B.I report in which Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha as well as the applicant were allegedly involved in certain criminal SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 8 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE irregularities and subsequently disciplinary inquiry was initiated against them. From the said report, it is also coming out that the applicant and Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha, Deputy Manager in NBC, Jalahalli Head Post Office, Bangalore who were engaged in passport assistance, collected the details of fake addresses such as vacant site, non-existence etc and created documents with an intention of forgery.
12. Clearly, the C.B.I case may be more complex and distinct as it dealt with certain criminal omissions and commissions. Before us, the only thing available is the Articles of charge against the applicant, and we do not find any criminal aspects as mentioned in the C.B.I report are taken up for Disciplinary action. Hence it is not at all clear how for the irregular delivery of post someone else like Sri.J.N.Jagadeesha was more responsible than the applicant himself?
As per Article I, in the charge sheet it mentions that the applicant while deployed for delivery of the speed post articles pertaining to Vidyarayanapura, Bangalore during the relevant period from September 2013 to July 2014, failed to adhere/comply the existing instructions/guidelines on the 'Manner of delivery of speed post articles containing passports'.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 9 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Further in Article II, it mentions that the applicant while deployed for delivery of the speed post articles pertaining to Vidyarayanapura, Bangalore during the relevant period from Sept, 2013 to July, 2014 delivered 24 passports without ascertaining the genuineness whether those addressees are residing in that address or otherwise.
In Article III, it mentioned that the applicant while deployed for delivery of the speed post articles pertaining to Vidyaranayapura, Bangalore during the relevant period from Sep, 2013 to July, 2014 failed to locate those 24 addressees in Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore and undelivered the 'Show Cause Notice' issued by the Regional Passport Office, Bangalore in July, 2014.
13. Now, all these charges were pertaining to the delivery of post for which we did not have anything before us which may show anyone else than the postman concerned, i.e., the applicant, was squarely, individually and personally responsible for the delivery. So for the charges separately framed, limited to delivery of certain posts, that also important posts carrying passports of persons some irregularities were found. The applicant in no way can show if Shri. J.N. Jagadeesha had any such responsibility to enter into his shoes and SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE be responsible for delivery of post in a certain way or manner. If he is responsible for all the three Articles of charge which are proven through a due process of inquiry and which has not been in any way discredited, the responsible official cannot say that someone else who had a different set of official responsibilities and who may have been charged with a different set of quantum of punishment must get the same or more lenient treatment.
What is before us are the three charges proven. We have gone through the charges. Delivery of post cannot be thought to be a mechanical process and non-delivery in the way which is prescribed in the law, rules and manuals will only look to be a technical irregularity on cursory view. But particularly in the cases of delivery of important items like passports, where address verification and verification of the addressee is very important aspect of delivery process and where national security and safety of all other citizens also become a matter of concern, any such irregularity has very many ramifications and complex and sinister consequences. The applicant is not charged with criminal complicity, which has been shown in the C.B.I report, which is on the record, but only about irregularities in the delivery, but in no way that can justifiably be considered as a simple default trivialising the event of delivery of a passport, as any SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 11 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE simply delivery of any other ordinary post. Due to this unique circumstantial facts we are clear in our mind that in this particular case it required appropriate punishment and deterrent punishment, as anyone who is waiting for an important post and if it is not delivered to them or if someone is trying to manipulate the process of the passport delivery system through manipulating the avoidance of personal identity verification and address verification, is a matter of great national security and safety concern. And in view of that, these charges levelled and proved against the applicant are not simple charges, and we have nothing before us to compare what case was there for the other person, Shri. J.N. Jagadeesha, and for what lapses, what type of punishment he was meted out.
Hence, with the available records, we are convinced and we are clear in our mind that punishment imposed on the applicant in the facts of this case is not disproportionate, and it may be somewhat lenient for cases of irregular passport delivery which event is entangled with the issues of national security. Any passport delivery has to be through a proper process and protocol put in place, and any breach in the said protocol is not a matter just something between a postman and the addressee, but the whole society's interest of national security is there in the matter. Hence, we do not find any merit on the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 12 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE grounds in paragraph 5(1) that the applicant should be treated similar to Shri. J.N. Jagadeesha as no meaningful comparison can be done between Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha and applicant, as about Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha we have little information before us and we do not know what were charges against him, what charges were proved and why he was given lenient penalty. Hence, we reject this ground.
14. In paragraph 5(ii), the applicant submits that the case was remitted to the disciplinary authority, the respondent No.3 by this Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the applicant. However, the respondent No.4. reviewed the inquiry report and has given fresh findings without authority of law. The present findings given by the respondent No.4 herein, vide Annexure- A2 are without the authority of law and contrary to the earlier order of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, the disciplinary authority, the respondent No.3, without deciding the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the applicant as ordered by this Hon'ble Tribunal, has imposed a major penalty without any justification. As such, the penalty imposed as per Annexure-A5 is not sustainable in law and the order of the appellate authority, respondent No.2, Annexure-A8 is liable to be set aside.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE It is not clear as to what the applicant wanted to mention by saying that the respondent no.4 reviewed the inquiry report and has given fresh findings without authority of law and the present findings given by the respondent no.4 vide Appendix A2 are without the authority of law and contrary to the earlier order of this Tribunal without deciding the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the applicant as ordered by the Tribunal, has imposed a major penalty etc.
15. Clearly, we can read the order of the Disciplinary Authority impugned as well as the Appellate Authority's order. Both are in detail and gave reasons for arriving at their conclusions and in the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it mentioned that:
"On a careful study of the case in light of relevant records, observations and orders of the Hon'ble CAT in the said order dated 11.10.2023 on the justification of punishment and considering the plea of the applicant. I am inclined to take a lenient view."
Accordingly, the TRCA of the applicant be reduced to a lower stage in the TRCA slab for a period of 4 years with further directions that he will not earn an annual increase during the period of reduction and on expiry of the reduction period, the reduction will have the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE effect of postponing the future increases of his time related continuity allowance has been made.
16. We do not find anything wrong with either in the process of inquiry, its conduct or the quantum of punishment imposed on the applicant, as the charges are, "improper delivery of passports without verification of addresses or without verifying the bonafide of the addressee". One cannot trivialise the improper delivery of passport as if it was any improper delivery of any ordinary post is not a routine matter and the available evidences and records show no one else can be accountable for the same than the applicant alone. In particular, the postman to deliver who was responsible for the delivery and once the applicant is not able to show that he was not the person responsible for such irregular delivery fraught with dangers to national security, as it is manifestly evident from the records, it cannot be said that the quantum of punishment imposed in this particular case is disproportionate to the misconduct substantiated in the inquiry.
17. We emphatically agree with the Disciplinary Authority that, as observed by the Disciplinary Authority, the imposed penalty is lenient. Similarly, we do not find any fault with the order of the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Appellate Authority, which is a speaking and the same is based on reasons. And any comparison of the case of the applicant with any person like that of Shri.J.N.Jagadeesha etc., when the charges framed against the applicant are limited to delivery of certain important posts related to passports and the applicant was fully responsible for such irregular delivery, no one else can be held accountable to the said charge. Further as the charges are proven and the quantum of punishment is lenient and acceptable, we do not find any ground for interfering with the impugned orders. Hence, the arguments made out in paragraph 5(ii) are also rejected.
18. In paragraph 5(iii), the applicant submits that having regard to the fact that Sri J.N.Jagadeesha, who is also involved in the above case along with the applicant and his role was more serious than that of the applicant, considering the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the maximum penalty that could be imposed on the applicant is 'censure only and no other penalty. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. However, the disciplinary authority, respondent No.3 and the appellate authority, respondent No.2 have failed to consider the case properly and passed erroneous orders. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 16 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
19. The applicant has misread the order of the Tribunal. First thing the applicant should understand that Tribunal in its capacity of judicial review cannot prompt, or direct the respondents to impose any specific penalty. It will be wrong to say that Tribunal intended to prompt respondents to impose a lenient penalty like 'censure'. In essence the Tribunal only observed that his case was not of the order where an extreme penalty of removal from service could be there. There was no intent that the applicant should only be imposed with a penalty of censure only. No such intent ever expressly or in an implied manner was stated in the earlier order of the Tribunal. Earlier order merely labelled the quantum of punishment (removal from service) as disproportionate, and set aside the same. Subsequently the authorities were free to assess the applicant's case independently. We find that all the details regarding the case of the applicant have been filed in the reply statement, and we do not find any rejoinder has been filed so primarily we have to depend on the additional facts provided in the reply statement. Hence, based on the reply and attached documents which we have carefully gone through, and which are not countered by any rejoinder, hence we find that there is nothing to believe that the charges which were framed against the applicant for SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE improper delivery of important posts, more specifically passports, a postman only be fully and primarily will be responsible for any omission or commission; and no one else will be responsible for the misconduct as have been proved in the article of charges. And once the charges are proven, the authorities are free to impose a penalty, and the quantum of penalty in our considered opinion is not something disproportionate which may shock our conscience. The power of judicial review is limited in the case of disciplinary inquiry and imposition of penalty. Hence, we do not find any merit on the grounds made out in paragraph 5(iii) of the Original Application, and accordingly those are rejected.
20. As per the Hon'ble Apex Court's various pronouncements in a disciplinary case, power of Tribunal and Courts of judicial review of such orders are quite limited and within the confines of the observations and directions and ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Some of the relevant case laws are:
a) In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 18 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 SCR 521] , Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981]".
b) In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.
c) In OAs challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re-appreciation of evidence.
The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 19 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE that the order is without jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held that "The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice".
d) In a large number of cases including the case of Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha ; (1994) 2 SCC 615, State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723,Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279=1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079, State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Another (2011 STPL (web) 904) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raghubir Singh and another, CWP No. 1154/2014 decided on 06.05.2014 by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the underline theme is that the High Court/tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. They have to see whether there is violation of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity committed by the inquiry officer, Disciplinary authority and due procedure was adopted strictly in accordance with the service rule.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
e) Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus P.Gunasekaran 2015 (2) S.C.C. Page 610) in paras 12, 13 & 20 has held as follows:-
"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, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation 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; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate 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.
Xx xx xx
19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 22 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."
f) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi v.
Union of India & 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. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges against the appellant to have been proved. After consultation with the UPSC, the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.10.1986.The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, upheld all the charges as having been proved but converted the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The delinquent filed an appeal challenging the finding on merits, and the Union filed an appeal canvassing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by it. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India and dismissing that of the delinquent.
Per Ramaswamy and Jeevan Reddy, JJ "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of 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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 23 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on 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 conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, 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 case."
g) 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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 24 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 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."
h) Not only this the Hon'ble Apex Court has even pleased to observe in regard to scope of judicial review as well as in regard to the quantum of punishment and in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Md. Ayub Naaz reported in 2006 (1) SCC 589. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"10. This Court in Om Kumar and Others vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 while considering the quantum of punishment / proportionality has observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. In the instant case, the authorities have not omitted any relevant materials nor any irrelevant fact taken into account nor any illegality committed by the authority nor the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate. The punishment was awarded in the instant case, after considering all the relevant materials and, therefore, in our view, the interference by the High Court on reduction of punishment of removal is not called for."
i) In the case of Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 25 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non- application of mind by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondent's case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the disciplinary authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the appellate authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority. All told, the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority."
j) In the case of State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to an employee to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. It was SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 26 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE further held that a dismissal order has serious consequence and should be passed only after complying with the rules of natural justice.
k) It is settled principle that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, the copies of material must be supplied to the party against whom such an enquiry is held. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority did not consider this aspect of the matter and expressed their concurrence to the finding of the Inquiry Officer, without applying their independent and free mind. The Appellate Authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner failed to appreciate the fact that the Enquiry Officer at the back of the petitioner had proved charges without affording reasonable opportunity to controvert the same. Therefore, the order of Appellate Authority is bad in law and cannot be sustained. As regards the opportunity before passing of the final order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail in the case of B.N. Kansal Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1988 Suppe. SCC 761.
l) In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay & Ors. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1182, this Court held that various parameters of the court's power of judicial review of administrative or executive action on which the court can interfere had been well settled and it would be redundant to recapitulate the whole catena of decisions. The Court further held: "It is a settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to, or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach, or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the court would be justified in interfering with the same."
m) The court can exercise the power of judicial review if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise of power would stand vitiated. The court may be justified in exercising the power of judicial review if the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 27 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE order had been passed by the authority beyond the limits conferred upon the authority by the legislature.
n) Thus, the court has to be satisfied that the order had been passed by the authority only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety before it interferes. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and interfering with the order of the authority may impose heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead to unbudgeted expenditure. (Vide: Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11; People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 456; and State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080).
o) In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 801, this Court explaining the scope of judicial review held that the court must act with great caution and should exercise such power only in furtherance to public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court must always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. 16. There may be a case where the holders of public offices have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are a sacred trust and such offices are meant for use and not abuse. Where such trustees turn to dishonest means to gain an undue advantage, the scope of judicial review attains paramount importance. (Vide:
Krishan Yadav & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2166).
p) The court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding. (Vide: High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2286; Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, AIR 2006 SC SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 28 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 1214; and Union of India & Ors. v. Manab Kumar Guha, (2011) 11 SCC 535).
q) The question of interference on the quantum of punishment, has been considered by this Court in a catena of judgments, and it was held that if the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary, and thus, would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2386, this Court observed as under:
"But 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.
r) The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on the aspect, which is otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. In the present case, the punishment is so stringently disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review." (Emphasis added) (See also: Union of India & Anr. v. G. Ganayutham (dead by Lrs.), AIR 1997 SC 3387; State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v.
J.P. Saraswat, (2011) 4 SCC 545; Chandra Kumar Chopra v. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 369; and Registrar General, Patna High Court v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2319).
s) In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 484, this Court after examining various its earlier decisions observed that in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the court cannot "normally" substitute its own conclusion or penalty. However, if the penalty imposed by an authority "shocks the conscience" of the court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation, itself, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
t) In V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3417, this Court considered the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found that SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 29 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges and if the court comes to the conclusion that the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found to be "shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards." In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.
u) In State of Meghalaya & Ors. v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, AIR 2008 SC 2862, this Court observed that a Court or a Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocks the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. (See also: Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681).
v) The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. (Vide: Union of India & Ors. v. Bodupalli Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553; and Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1783).
w) In Union of India & Ors. v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 3053, this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 30 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Thakur (supra) observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur (supra) are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds.
21. Critical examination of all the above Rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly shows that the Tribunals do not sit as Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidences before the I.O, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority of the Department and hence the evidence cannot be completely re-appreciated afresh. Further the discretion of the Counts within the scope of judicial review has very limited scope to go into the proportionality of punishment, and in the case in hand, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed is lenient and not disproportionate.
22. Clearly the disciplinary authority has applied his independent mind and is lenient in giving punishment. So from any angle, the argument of the applicant that his punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct is not convincing. Hence, none of the contentions of the applicant has any force. Now considering the case SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 31 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE as per the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. P.Gunasekaran [2015 (2) SCC 610] in paragraphs 12,13, & 20, the present enquiry is held by a competent authority, is according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. We do not find that the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case. We also do not find that the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; and that the conclusions, on the very face of it, is not so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion. We do not find that the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence, and the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding, and that the finding of fact is based on no evidence. We clearly find that in this case the finding are based on clear evidences on record, oral as well as documentary. Hence, the inquiry and consequent orders were in order. In this case main thrust of the grounds of relief and the arguments of the applicant is regarding proportionality of punishment. As for the charges framed and proved the applicant alone as the post delivery SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.18 10:17:46+05'30' 32 O.A.Nos.170/423/2024/CAT/BANGALORE agent was responsible for the irregular delivery of the important posts like 'passport', which matter cannot be brushed aside and trivialised as mere technical violation or aberration, and as the said responsibility of delivery was primarily of the applicant, hence we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant. We are of the considered opinion that none of the applicant's arguments on the quantum of punishment are acceptable. So we have no doubt in our mind that the applicant has not been able to substantiate his case, and hence we are unable to interfere with the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority on the quantum of punishment.
23. Hence, we pass the following order:-
The Original Application is dismissed. Accordingly, M.As if any pending, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.18
10:17:46+05'30'