Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Harisinh A Chaudhry vs M/O Railways on 13 July, 2022
1 [OA NO. 121/2015]
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No.121/2015.
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2022
Reserved on : 30.03.2022
Pronounced on: 13.07.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Sh. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. A.K. Dubey, Member (A)
1. Shri Harisingh A. Chaudhary (Sex: Male)
S/o Shri Ajaypalsingh Chaudhary,
Aged: about 45 years, Occupation: Service
Address: Railway Quarter, Quarter No. T/81A
OKHA - 361 350, District: Jamnagar/
Dev Bhumi Dwarka
...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. A B Gogia)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Owning and Representing Western Railway
Through General Manager
Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 020.
2. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Kothi Compound, Rajkot - 360 001.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager/
Appellate Authority
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Kothi Compound, Rajkot - 360 001.
4. Chief Commercial manager (PM) &
Revisionary Authority,
Western Railway, Head quarter Office,
Church Gate, Mumbai. - 400 020.
...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. M J Patel)
ORDER
Per Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of "Reduction to two stages lower in the same time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect", the order dated 04.09.2014 passed by 2 [OA NO. 121/2015] Appellate Authority upholding the penalty order (Annexure A/2) and the order of rejection of his Revision Application vide order dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure A/3), the applicant herein has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"Para 8 A. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit and allow the present application.
B. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the punishment imposed of "Reduction to two stages lower in the same time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect." Passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (WR) Rajkot vide its NO. E/CON/161/12/XH/04 dated April 16, 2014 (16.04.2014)(at Annexure - „A/1‟) confirmed in Appeal by the Appellate Authority i.e., AA &ADRM, Rajkot vide it‟s No. EVEN dated September 04, 2014 (04.09.2014) (at Annexure - „A/2‟) and further by rejecting the Revision Application filed by the Applicant by the Chief Commercial Manager (PM) & Revisionary Authority vide it‟s No. E/DAR/308/44/4/14(2014) dated December 16, 2014 (16.12.2014) (at ANNEXURE - „A/3‟).
C. the HON‟BLE TRIBUNAL may be pleased to direct the Respondent (s) to restore and refund all the benefits(s) and amount(s) paid less to the applicant on account of the above punishment order(s) with interest.
D. Any other reliefs or reliefs as may be deemed just and proper, may please be granted.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The applicant, while working as Assistant Reservation Supervisor at Okha, was served with a Memorandum dated 11.03.2013 under the provision of Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for major penalty. Along with the said Memorandum, he was supplied statement of Article of Charges, Statement of Imputation of Misconduct as also list of relied upon documents and list of witnesses by the Disciplinary Authority i.e., Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Rajkot, alleging therein that (1) he has generated the JCR Ticket without collecting the fare to facilitate the passenger which reflected as shortage of Rs. 9491/- in Government Cash, (2) he has generated the JCR Ticket without actual presence of passenger and (3) he has accepted the Requisition Form of 19223 3 [OA NO. 121/2015] Ex ADI - CHKB and has issued the ticket on the fake ID with mala fide intention. (Annexure A/4).
2.2 The applicant has denied the charges levelled against him by way of his detailed reply dated 20.03.2013 (Annexure A/5) and explained the circumstances of the case and requested the Disciplinary Authority to drop the charges.
2.3 On denial of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry Officer. During the inquiry, applicant was supplied additional two documents i.e., letters dated 15.08.2013 & 24.09.2013 written by Station Master, Dwarka to Inquiry Officer and to R.I.O & RETC SVO (M), Head Quarter Church Gate respectively (Annexure A/6 & A/7). After the closer of stage production and examining the witnesses, he had submitted his detailed note/defense representation dated 26.09.2013 (Annexure A/11).
2.4 On conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Authority i.e., IO had submitted his Inquiry Report dated 25.10.2013 wherein the IO had recorded his findings that charges leveled against the applicant were "not proved" (Annexure A/8).
2.5 By disagreeing with the findings of the IO, the Disciplinary Authority vide its communication dated 19.03.2014 (annexure A/9) sent the copy of his disagreement note along with the said inquiry report and directed the applicant to submit his representation. 2.6 The applicant submitted his representation dated 02.04.2014 to the Disciplinary Authority stating that the finding of the IO are correct but the reason assigned in the disagreement note are in correct as the same is contrary to the material on record (Annexure A/12). 2.7 It is contended that without considering the evidence on record and the explanation submitted by the applicant in his representation, the Disciplinary Authority vide impugned order dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure A/1) imposed the penalty of reduction to two stages lower in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with future effect.4 [OA NO. 121/2015]
2.8 Aggrieved with the penalty order, the statutory appeal filed by the applicant came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure A/2) and the Revision Application thereon also came to be rejected by the Revisionary Authority vide order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure A/3). Hence this O.A.
3. Learned counsel Ms. K. L. Kalwani for advocate Mr. A. B. Gogia, in support of the prayer sought by the applicant in this OA, mainly submitted as under:-
3.1 The charges levelled against the applicant were based upon assumption and mere suspicions‟ as such the charges levelled against the applicant did not constitute any misconduct under the Rules. It is contended that evidence surfaced during the inquiry did not support the charge levelled against the CO and based on the evidence, the IO recorded its finding that the charges were not established against the applicant. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the defense of the applicant and proceeded in an arbitrary manner under the pressure of vigilance department and imposed major penalty which is contrary to the material on record and the same is harsh in nature. Learned counsel for the applicant by referring the provision stipulated in Rule 22 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, submits that the Appellate Authority as well the Revisionary Authority has also proceeded mechanically and without application of mind while upholding the punishment of "reduction to two stages lower in the same time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effects" order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3.2 Learned counsel submits that the punishment imposed upon the applicant shall affect his monthly salary throughout his career and his pension after his retirement. It is submitted that the material on record do not warrant such harsh and disproportionate punishment. In this regard, Learned counsel placed reliance on the observation recorded by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in its judgment passed in case of Vijaykumar M. Jasani Vs Gujarat State Road 5 [OA NO. 121/2015] Transport Corporation, Rajkot, reported in 1987 GLH 195, which reads as under: -
"The cumulative effect is also many a times not given proper consideration. Cumulative effect has the effect over the entire service career of the workman and there is permanent loss, and at the end of the service the cumulative loss would run into a very large figure and it would also affect the pensionary benefits. The punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is to be imposed after careful consideration and application of mind to the resultant total consequences".
Further reliance has been placed on the para-14 of Judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ministry of Finance & other Vs S. B Ramesh (AIR 1998 SC 853), which reads as under: -
"It is true that the degree of proof required in a departmental disciplinary proceeding, need not be of the same standard as the degree of proof required for establishing the guilt of the Accused in criminal case. However the law is settled now that suspicion, however strong, cannot be substituted for proof even in a departmental proceeding."
Learned counsel, therefore submits that in the present case the IO recorded his findings that there is no evidence surfaced during the inquiry to support the alleged charges and the charges are not proved. The said finding was recorded based on the material of the record of the inquiry whereas the conclusion arrived by the DA and the AA is based on suspicion and contrary to the material on record. Therefore, impugned orders imposing major penalty are bad in law and harsh in nature.
4. Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and denied the contentions of the Applicant. Learned Counsel Mr. M. J. Patel for the respondents mainly submitted as under:-
4.1 The applicant was granted ample opportunity by the IO as well as the DA to defend his case and as such there is no grievance on the part of applicant / CO about any violation of principle of natural justice in the present case. 4.2 It is not correct on the part of applicant to claim that there was no evidence surfaced during the inquiry and the case was only based on suspicion. In fact, during vigilance check, the applicant had signed joint note which was part of the 6 [OA NO. 121/2015] relied upon documents (RUD) supplied to the applicant along with the Memorandum (Ann.A/4) from which it is very much clear and proved that Rs.9,491/- reflected as shortage in Government cash clearly showed that applicant had favoured the passenger and generated JCR ticket without actual presence of passenger and accepted requisition form of 19223 Ex ADL-CHKB.. The said conduct of the applicant was found contrary to the Railway Service Conduct Rules and para-3&4 of IREM Vol.-I as also commercial Circular No.59/2011. The DA had assigned cogent reasons for disagreement with the finding of IO as also considered the representation of the applicant and only thereafter concluded that the charges leveled against the applicant stood proved. There is no procedural lacuna in the present disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant and the impugned order passed by the DA is based on the material on record. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that considering the seriousness and gravity of the proven guilt of applicant, the major penalty has been imposed which cannot be said to disproportionate.
He submits that applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
5. Applicant has filed rejoinder and denied the averments of the reply filed by the respondents. The applicant in his rejoinder reiterated the contentions as stated in the OA. In addition, learned counsel has submitted written submissions wherein, it has been stated that the DA while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the IO, failed to record its own independent reasons for its disagreement as well the separate finding on each charge. Without assigning any separate reason on the charges, the DA has believed that charges stood proved. Learned counsel by relying on the judgment passed in the case of Mathura Prasad Vs. UOI, [AIR 2007 SC 381] with regard to scope of Rule 10 (2) (3) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules submits that the impugned order passed by the DA is in violation of 7 [OA NO. 121/2015] provision of sub rule 3 of rule 10 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules.
It has been argued that the applicant was directed to look after the tatkal reservation on behalf of Mr. Ajay A.Vyas since he was to come late. Accordingly, in Mr. Vyas‟s place the applicant was discharging duties to avoid inconvenience to the public at large as there was long queue at the booking window. The IO in his report has recorded that during the preventive check by the Team of Vigilance, out of four tickets two JCR tickets of Rs. 2,411/- were delivered to the concerned passenger after collecting the said amount. Since other two passengers (DW-1 & DW-2) had gone to bring original ID proof, the balance two JCR tickets for value of Rs. 1,508/- and Rs. 5,572/- were with the CO and by the time the passenger viz. DW-1 and DW-2 came back with their original IDs, the said JCR Tickets were seized by the Vigilance Team which had then left the Station. Therefore, the fare of these two JCR tickets totaling Rs. 7,080/- remained uncollected at that point of time. Therefore, it is not correct that Rs. 9491/- was short in Government Cash as alleged in the charge memo. On such findings, the IO has concluded that in the facts and circumstances, generation of the said JCR tickets was not with any mala fide intention but was just as a normal working. Accordingly, the IO has held that the charges were not proved. Learned counsel, therefore, vehemently submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the major penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate since the DA imposed the penalty of reduction to two stages lower in the same time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect, which would affect at every stage of service in the career. It is submitted that as such the major penalty awarded was harsh and disproportionate in the present case. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shri Trikamlal Shah Vs. Bank of India [SCA NO.2186/1984] decided on 06/09/2004 and the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. 8 [OA NO. 121/2015] Balasubrahmanayam, [2021 Law Suit (SC) 148] and submitted that the penalty imposed was disproportionate. Hence, interference of this Tribunal was warranted, she argued.
6. Heard, the parties at length and perused the material on record.
7. In the present case, it is noticed that departmental enquiry was held against the applicant for the charges that while he was working as ARS at Okha Railway Station (i) he has generated the JCR Ticket without collecting the fare to facilitate the passenger which reflected as shortage of Rs. 9491/- in Government Cash, (ii) he has generated the JCR Ticket without actual presence of passenger and (iii) he has accepted the Requisition Form of 19223 Ex ADI - CHKB and has issued the ticket on the fake ID with malafide intention. Along with the Charge Memo dated 4.9.2014 he was supplied with copy of Articles of Charge, Statement of Imputation, List of relied upon Documents and the List of Witnesses. He participated in the inquiry and had cross examined the PW and had also produced his defense witnesses to substantiate his defense. On conclusion of the inquiry, the IO had submitted his report dated 25.10.2013 whereby, he recorded his findings that charges levelled against the applicant were not proved. Disagreeing with said findings of the IO, the DA had forwarded his disagreement note along with the report of the IO to the applicant/CO with a direction to submit his representation. On receipt of representation of applicant the DA by way of a speaking order, held that charges levelled against the applicant were established and proved and considering the gravity of the offence involved, a major penalty of „Reduction to two stages lower in the same time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effects‟ was awarded vide impugned order dated 16.4.2014 (Annex.A/1).
8. In the present O.A. it is not the case of the applicant that during the inquiry he was deprived of a fair opportunity to submit his defense. Undisputedly, the inquiry was held against the applicant by following the provisions of rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D&A) 9 [OA NO. 121/2015] Rules, 1968 and the disciplinary proceeding was concluded by following the principles of natural justice.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the evidence surfaced during the inquiry did not support the charge leveled against the CO and accordingly, the IO recorded his finding that the charges were not established against the applicant. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the version and defense of the applicant and proceeded in an arbitrary manner under the pressure of vigilance department and imposed major penalty which is contrary to the material on record and the same is harsh in nature. According to the counsel for the applicant, it is a case of „no evidence. It is also argued that the without assigning any cogent independent reasons or recording separate findings on each charge as required in terms of provision of Sub-rules(3) &(4) of Rule 10 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, the DA has imposed the said penalty.
9.1 Further, learned counsel for the applicant also argued that during the inquiry the IO had supplied two additional documents to the CO i.e., letter dated 15.08.2013 and 24.09.2013 written by Station Master, Dwarka. The said letter was addressed to the Inquiry Officer as also to RIO and RETD SVO (M), Head Quarter : Church Gate, Mumbai, wherein the Station Master had categorically averred that on 09.06.2012 at morning when he reached the Station, found that there was queue of the passengers in front of the window for Tatkal reservation and the passengers complained that no official/officer was available at the window. On the said day one Shri Ajay A. Vyas, ECRC was entrusted duty from 7:30 am to 16:00. However, he informed the Station Master on phone that he would be reaching late. So the applicant was called and directed by the Station Master that till Mr. Ajay Vyas came, he would work at tatkal ticket booking. In the said letter, it is also mentioned that the applicant had informed the Station Master that let the charges/money of the tickets 10 [OA NO. 121/2015] be handled by said Mr. Vyas since he was reaching within short time of five minutes. Further, in the second letter dated 24.09.2013, the Station Master informed the Headquarter regarding preventing check of vigilance dated 09.06.2012, wherein, it was stated that on 09.06.2012, two passengers turned up to him with original ID proof and demanded their reservation tickets. The tickets were seized by the vigilance team and they left the station Okha, therefore delivery of tickets could not be granted (Annexs. A/6 & A/7).
9.2 By relying upon the aforesaid documents, learned counsel submits that the IO had taken into consideration the entire evidence of the inquiry including the letters written by the Station Master and based on the deposition of the witnesses recorded his detailed findings in para 8.8 of the Inquiry Report for arriving at the conclusion that the charges were not established. The disciplinary authority has not rebutted the findings recorded by the IO by way of any independent reason thereon. Therefore, the conclusion arrived by the Disciplinary Authority seems to be based only on suspicion and contrary to the material on record. According to the counsel for applicant, the DA had erroneously held that the charges levelled against the applicant proved vide impugned order dated 16.04.2014 and imposed not only a harsh major penalty but also a disproportionate one, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9.3 It is also the grievance of the applicant that the AA & RA had mechanically accepted the conclusion arrived by the DA and upheld the order of punishment of major penalty.
10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were held against the applicant based on the documentary as well oral evidence. On receipt of the inquiry report, the DA by recording separate the 11 [OA NO. 121/2015] reasons for his disagreement to the finding of the Inquiry Officer forwarded the copy of disagreement note as well the report of Inquiry Officer to the applicant. After considering the representation of the CO and material on record, the DA by speaking order held that charges leveled against the applicant stood proved. Considering the gravity of offence involved, the DA found it appropriate to impose the said major penalty. Therefore it is not correct on the part of applicant to claim that in the present OA „there is no evidence and the DA had violated the provisions of Rule 10 in taking action on the receipt of the IO. It is submitted that in the present case, there is no procedural lacuna or violation of principles of natural justice in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. The punishment order passed by the DA is based on the evidence surfaced during the inquiry and the penalty imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate in light of the proven mis-conduct of the applicant. Therefore, no interference is warranted, he argued.
11. At this stage, it is appropriate to reproduce the conclusion arrived by Disciplinary Authority, which reads as under:-
"I have gone through the findings submitted by the EO, final defence submitted by you and also the charges shown in Statement of Imputation in the charge sheet & my observation is as under:-
Charge no.1. : I do not agree with the defence submitted by you against the disagreement served since it is clearly mentioned in IRCM Vol.I vide para No.239 that all formalities like verification of the requisition form, supported documents like ID or any concession etc. and fare due for the journey mentioned in the requisition form by a passenger should be done. It is further pointed out that passenger fare must in all cases prepaid so it is the duty of the on duty staffs i.e. you to collect money before issuing the JCR tickets. No any instructions prevails which permits you or any other staff to break the instructions at the cost to save the public complaint. It is mandatory to all staff to strictly adhere to the instructions in vogue. By the and the version given by you that to avoid the complaint you have issue JCR tickets without collection of fairs which clearly indicate violation of rule No.239 of IRCM Vol. I. Charge No.2. : It has been clearly pointed out that in charge No.1 that without collection of fair JCR tickets cannot be generated and rule does not permit to wait for any passenger for bringing money or any necessitate documents. It is the moral duty of the passenger to keep original ID and the same has to be shown on demand for verification by a Railway servant may be CVI, SM and Booking Clerk. Hence JCR tickets generated without collection of fare is not correct. The JCR tickets were seized by vigilance team since after 12 [OA NO. 121/2015] the completion of the check, no any person approached for the collection of JCR tickets.
Charge No.3. : The instructions in vogue are very clear that passenger intended to travel as to offer the requisition form and ID of the passenger listed the requisition form for journey and there is no need an identity card of a representative of a passenger. The reference of ID of a representative leads to be suspicious to touting activities."
12. Further, it is noticed that aggrieved with the order passed by the DA, the applicant had filed a statutory appeal. While rejecting the said appeal vide order dated 4.9.2014 (Annex.A/2), the appellate authority observed that :
'as per rule the tickets are to be issued only after collecting money and verifying the documents like ID or any concession etc. along with the requisition form. There seems to be no reason not to follow the above rule for the sake of avoiding public complaints. It has been concluded by the EO that four JCR tickets were generated valuing Rs. 9491/-, two JCR tickets valuing Rs. 7080/- were with the applicant for which the passengers could not be found at the time of the vigilance check. In view of above, there is no reason for any modification in the penalty imposed by the DA.‟ The revision filed by the applicant against the said orders also came to be dismissed by the revisionary authority vide order dated 16.12.2014.
13. It can be seen that the disciplinary authority has assigned cogent reasons for disagreement with the findings recorded by the IO and based on the material on record, the DA arrived at the conclusion that in violation of provisions of Para 239 of IRCM Vol. I the applicant had generated the tickets without collecting the fare from the passenger. By a detailed speaking order, the DA held that the charges levelled against the applicant had been substantiated, recorded his conclusion and finding that applicant had exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty and thereby violated their rules of Railway Service Rules, 1966 and looking at the gravity of offence involved, deemed it appropriate to impose the major penalty vide order dated 16.4.2014 and the same has been upheld by the AA and the RA. It is noticed that the DA has assigned cogent reasons for his conclusion based on the evidence surfaced during the inquiry and as per the record of inquiry. Under the circumstances, the submission 13 [OA NO. 121/2015] of the counsel for the applicant that the DA had not recorded his independent findings on each charge in terms of rule 10 and the impugned order had been passed only on suspicion is in our considered view, not correct and the same is not tenable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present case is of „no evidence‟.
14. At this stage, it is apt to mention that it is settled principles of law that in the matter of departmental inquiry and decision thereon by the DA, the scope of judicial review is very limited. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to refer an order of three Judges‟ Bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pravin Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 471, wherein, after referring a catena of decisions including the law laid down in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI (1996) SCC (L&S) 18 held that "...it would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome." Further, it is also held that "...the constitutional courts while exercising powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority."
Further, in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Phulpare Kumari, (2020) 2 SCC 130, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that "sufficiency of evidence is not within realm of judicial review."
Also, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 547 : (2020) 3 SCC 423, the Hon‟ble Apex Court while rejecting the submission of delinquent that the disciplinary authority records a finding that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is unreasonably arrived at, 14 [OA NO. 121/2015] the writ court could interfere with the finding of the disciplinary proceedings, held therein that "...we do not find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or High Court could interfere with the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The findings that misconduct has been interfered with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence."
15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid dictum laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is of the considered view that as noted herein above in the present case, the departmental inquiry held against the applicant by following the due procedure laid down in Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968, the applicant had been granted sufficient opportunity to defend his case during the inquiry. The DA had assigned separate reasons for his dis-agreement in his dis- agreement note and the same was forwarded to the applicant for his reply, and on consideration of applicant‟s reply, by a speaking order the DA had concluded that the charges levelled against the applicant stood proved, the AA and the RA had also upheld the said penalty. Therefore, in absence of any procedural errors or violation of principles of natural justice as also in absence of any perverse findings in violation of procedural stipulations and rules and material on record, we are of the considered opinion that any interference with the findings recorded by the DA, would be tentamount to re-appreciation of the evidence, sitting as an appellate authority and that is not within the purview of judicial review as laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court(supra). Therefore, we decline to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the AA and the RA.
16. So far as the submission of the applicant that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the conduct and in support of the submission, learned counsel for applicant had relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in UOI Vs. P. Balasubrahmanayam (Civil 15 [OA NO. 121/2015] Appeal No. 3592/2000 and 3593/2020 decided on 4.3.2021) as also other judgments are concerned, there cannot be any doubt with the ratio laid down in the said judgments. But, at the same time, in the present case, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or irrational and in absence of it, in our considered view, with regard to penalty imposed upon the applicant, no interference is warranted merely on compassionate ground. It is noticed that the DA has recorded his findings that after taking into consideration the gravity of offence/misconduct involved, had awarded major penalty of reduction in two stages lower in the same time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect. In the given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the said subjective satisfaction of the D.A., does not require our interference. The said penalty as awarded by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be dis- proportionate.
17. In the result, this Tribunal therefore, finds no merit in the application in hand. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A K Dubey) (J.V.Bhairavia)
Member(A) Member(J)
Pa - pps..