Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Sandeep Sawarkar vs Department Of Telecommunication on 16 April, 2025
:: 1 :: O.A.No.25/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
OA No25/2024
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2025
Reserved On : 5.02.2025
Pronounced On : 16.04.2025
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
SANDEEP SAWARKAR, I.T.S.,
Aged: 58 years (DOB being 13.10.1965)
Son of Shri G.G.Sawarkar
Presently serving as Chief General Manager,
Gujarat Telecom Circle, Ahmedabad
& presently residing at No.E/2,
Sanchar Niwas,
Ellis Bridge Area,
AHMEDABAD - 380 006. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.S.Rao)
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
(To be represented through the Secretary to the Gol,
Department of Telecommunications,
Ministry of Communication
20, Ashoka Road, Sanchar Bhavan,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
(To be represented through its Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,
NEW DELHI - 110 001).
3. SHRI ROHIT SHARMA, ITS,
Inquiry Officer & CGMT, BSNL, MH Circle,
Mumbai,
O/o CGMT
:: 2 :: O.A.No.25/2024
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Maharashtra Circle
6th Floor, A Wing
Administrative Building,
Juhu Road, Santacruz (W)
MUMBAI - 400 054.
4. SHRI DEB KUMAR CHAKRABARTI, ITS
Additional Director General
N.T.R.I.P.T..
Advance Level Telecom Training Centre,
Rajngar,
GAZIABAD
Uttar Pradesh ........ Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms.R.R.Patel )
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Being aggrieved by the impugned charge memorandum bearing No.100-63/2020/STG-I, dated 31.01.2023 and communication bearing No.CGM /MTC/ X / 5 / SPA 2023-24 dated 15.01.2024, the applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following relief:-
"The applicant herein therefore most respectfully prays that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to-
A. call upon the respondents herein to produce before this Hon'ble Tribunal all the original files, notings, correspondence exchanged amongst them, giving rise to the issuance of the impugned documents at Annexure-Al & Annexure-A/4 hereto B upon its perusal of the aforesaid original documents, your Lordships may be further graciously pleased to:-
B-1 quashing and set aside the (i) impugned Charge Memorandum bearing No. 100- 63/2020-STG-I, dated 31 January 2023 at Anexure-A/1 hereto issued by the responder :: 3 :: O.A.No.25/2024 no.1 herein holding and declaring that the said impugned Charge Memorandum came to be issued without the prior approval of the applicant's Appointing/Disciplinary Authority either to the draft of the impugned charge memorandum or even to the very impugned charge memorandum dated 31.01 2023 at Annexure-A/l hereto;
B-2 be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Communication bearing No.CGM/MTC/X/SPA/2023-24, dated 15.01.2024 at Annexure-A/2 hereto issued by the respondent no.3 herein; holding and declaring inter alia that it is not open to the respondent no. I herein to proceed with the concluded enquiry based on the "authenticated version " of the Character/Working Certificate allegedly issued by the applicant herein in favour of Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool, B3 issue appropriate directions commanding the respondents no.1 and 2 herein to open the "sealed cover" in respect of the applicant herein adopted by the respondents herein for grant of promotion to the applicant herein on regular basis as Higher Administrative Grade in the Level 15 of the Pay Matrix of 7th CPS, and grant the said promotion to the applicant herein at par with his junior Shri Deb Kumar Chakrabarti, with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including seniority.
C. grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and oper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The applicant is an Indian Telecom Service (ITS) Officer of 1987 Batch. He was posted as A.D.E.T. in the Junior Time Scale on 12.03.1990 followed by promotion in the Senior Time Scale on 27.02.1993 and subsequently again promoted to Junior Administrative Grade on 17.08.1998. He further granted the next promotion of Senior Administrative Grade on 01.01.2000 :: 4 :: O.A.No.25/2024 and the applicant was also granted HAG NFSG on 06.04.2020.
2.2 It is pleaded that the applicant was due for the grant of Higher Administrative Grade in 2023. Presently, he is on deemed deputation to BSNL and serving as Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle, Ahmedabad since 15.09.2021.
2.3 The applicant was served with a Charge Memorandum dated 31.03.2023 for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the respondent with respect to alleged misconduct to have been committed by the applicant while serving as a Telecom District Manager in Sindhudurg Division between 06.08.2001 and 30.09.2003.
2.4 The sum and substance of the charges levelled against the applicant was that he had engaged a 'call basis driver' despite the fact that there was a complete ban on engagement of casual labour according to the DoT OM dated 30.03.1985. Additionally, the applicant issued a Character /Working Certificate to the call basis driver in spite of ban on engagement of such call basis driver.
2.5 Subsequently, the said driver filed an application before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Mumbai which was decided vide its order dated 11.11.2015 directed to regularize the service of the hereinabove mentioned call basis driver with retrospect effect which was subsequently challenged in the Hon'ble High court and in the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein;
the parent organization viz., BSNL lost their stand. Thereafter, the BSNL had no option but to appoint the "call basis driver" w.e.f. 07.08.2001 and as a regular :: 5 :: O.A.No.25/2024 driver w.e.f. 06.08.2003 which resulted in causing huge pecuniary loss to the BSNL.
2.6 In response to the aforesaid Charge Memorandum dated 31.03.2023, the applicant had submitted his formal written reply on 22.02.2023 (Annexure-A/4) whereby denying all the aforesaid charges levelled against him. He further contended in his reply that the applicant had never issued any such character/working certificate to the said call basis driver and the applicant further had been given due permission by the CMD, BSNL to file a criminal complaint against the aforesaid call basis driver for producing forged certificate before the court of law for getting a Government job. However, considering the contention hereinabove mentioned by the applicant in the aforesaid written statement of defence dated 22.02.2023, the respondent appointed IO and PO vide order bearing No.100-63/2020-STG-I dated 18.04.2023 and vide order bearing No.100-63/2020-STG-I dated 18.04.2023 respectively (Annexure-A/5). Accordingly, the inquiry was held by the respondent No.3 herein on 30.05.2023, 24.06.2023, 17.07.2023 and 09.08.2023 (Annexure-A/7).
2.7 It was relevant to mention that during the inquiry, the applicant submitted formal representation dated 12.07.2023 to the IO drawing the attention of the IO that the BSNL had not yet produced on record of the inquiry proceeding the original certificate allegedly to have been issued by the applicant herein which was the main document for framing of the charges. However, the same original certificate could not be produced by the PO till the conclusion of the inquiry proceeding. Thereafter, the PO submitted his PO brief on 26.08.2023 and the :: 6 :: O.A.No.25/2024 applicant had also submitted its defence brief on 16.08.2023. It was informed that the IO had submitted his report in the month of September, 2023 in favour of the applicant. However, IO had informed the applicant herein that the DoT had issued a communication to the IO for conducting the inquiry again taking into consideration of the authenticated copies of documents available on record, in addition to the advise that the sole department witness Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool may also be examined, thereafter IO fixed for the next hearing date on 30.01.2024 in his chamber in Mumbai. Therefore, it proved that the respondent No.1 was all out to fix the applicant by hook or crook, by abuse of process of law and in malicious exercise of powers vested in the respondent No.1. Aggrieved with the said decision, the applicant filed the present OA.
3. Grounds for relief with legal provisions:-
3.1 The applicant relied primarily that the impugned charge memorandum dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure-A/1) suffered from inordinate delay of 20 years on the part of the respondent No.1 for initiation of the department disciplinary enquiry against the applicant. From perusal of the document attached to the impugned charge memorandum, it would be explicitly clear that the aforesaid call basis driver Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool had never produced the so called character/working Certificate, allegedly issued by the applicant herein in favour of the said call basis driver. It was also evident from the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court that they never referred to the aforesaid so called character/working certificate alleged to have been issued by the applicant herein and there were no :: 7 :: O.A.No.25/2024 discussion of such document in their respective Award, judgment. It was also evident that respondent were very much aware way back in 2004 itself that there was an industrial dispute, raised by the Union in respect of the non regularization of call basis driver viz., Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool and in consequence thereof the Ministry of Labour, Government of India had referred the dispute to the Central Government Tribunal cum Labour Court Mumbai No.II. However, the respondent did not take any step whatsoever against the applicant therein on the basis of the alleged certificate said to have been issued to the call basis driver Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool.
3.2 It was also a fact that after considering all the documents available on record IO submitted his report in favour of the applicant on the basis that original document of certificate allegedly said to have been issued by the applicant was not available. However, the IO was forced to continue to hold inquiry taking into consideration of the authenticated copies of documents available on record and examination of Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool. Further, it was also contrary to the provisions that once it had been categorically found by the IO in the inquiry proceeding that original copy of the so called character/working certificate allegedly issued by the applicant herein in favour of the aforesaid Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool was not available then under such circumstances, it was not open to the respondent herein to resort to direct the IO to hold enquiry on the basis of authenticated document of the said character/ working certificate in question. The applicant was also relied upon the provisions that the respondent authority had never obtained any prior approval of the Hon'be :: 8 :: O.A.No.25/2024 Union Cabinet Ministries for communications (who is the applicant's Appointing Authority / the Disciplinary Authority) either to the draft of the impugned charge memorandum or to the impugned memorandum dated 31.08.2023 and on the basis of that he prayed that the OA deserves merit and same be considered.
4. Per contra in reply respondent submitted that the averments made by the applicants are not based on the facts and same were denied. The respondent contended that the applicant Shri Sandeep Sawarkar had challenged the charge memorandum dated 31.01.2023 served upon him for engagement of casual labour and thereafter issuing certificate to one of the casual labours in BSNL despite the fact there was a complete ban of engagement of casual labour. Accordingly, the article of charge memorandum dated 31.01.2023 was issued to seek the explanation from the applicant on the basis that he was acted in a manner which was unbecoming of a Government servant and was in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It was a fact that DoT vide letter No.270/6/84-STN dated 30.03.1985 (Annexure-R/1) had banned the engagement of the casual labour, the applicant had engaged a call basis driver viz., Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool vide letter dated 12.01.2023 provided a copy of driving charge bill for vehicle MH-07-G-2016 for the period of 10.08.2002 to 14.08.2002 (Annexure-R/2). The said amount was received by Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool. Three workmen including Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool approached learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, Goa on 09.02.2004 for confirming their status and for getting privilege of workmen in BSNL. The case was filed :: 9 :: O.A.No.25/2024 through Nhava Shava Port and General Workers Union Mumbai because of the fact that no settlement could be arrived at between BSNL Management and the Union, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Mumbai for examination.
4.1 Further, as per the material brought on record before the CGIT, Mumbai, the applicant unauthorizedly issued a character/working certificate to a call basis driver namely, Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool which was used as an evidence against BSNL organization. Because of the character/working certificate produced by the casual driver, the entire case was decided against the BSNL which ultimately resulted into appointment of Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool as a permanent driver. BSNL had also challenged the said order of the CGIT in the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter in the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the decision was given in favour of the call basis driver Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool. Therefore it caused huge pecuniary loss to the BSNL company.
4.2 Subsequently, a show cause notice was served to the applicant vide letter No. PGMTDG /SS/Corr/2021- 22/16 dated 17.05.22 (Annexure-R/4) enclosing therewith a copy of the said Experience Certificate and the applicant was requested to confirm the same. However, the applicant vide his reply dated 24.05.2022 submitted that the copy enclosed was not original one, hence same could not be confirmed.
4.3 Thereafter, considering the statement of defence submitted by the applicant, the department decided to conduct the disciplinary inquiry against the Government :: 10 :: O.A.No.25/2024 servant for alleged to have violated Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and accordingly, a charge sheet dated 31.01.2023 was served to the applicant.
4.4 The applicant submitted his defence statement vide his reply dated 22.02.2023. On receipt of the defence statement from the applicant/charged officer, an inquiry authority and PO were appointed to conduct the inquiry according to the Rule 14(5)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was relevant to mention that the applicant/CO in his para 6 of his letter dated 22.02.2023 denied issuing any character certificate to Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool and applicant further stated that Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool be dropped from the witness list inspite of the fact that Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool was fulcrum of the entire issue. This added to the suspicion of his misconduct. The inquiry authority had conducted the inquiry according to Rule and procedure laid down under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 wherein the applicant participated. Accordingly, the IO submitted his report vide letter No.20.09.2023 (Annexure-R/10) in favour of the applicant on account of the non availability of the original character certificate issued by the applicant and the Driving Charge Bill for the duration 10.08.2002 to 14.08.2002 in original.
4.5 It was appropriate to mention that authenticated document could not be obtained by the PO and presented before the IO during the inquiry. IO also had not examined the prime witness i.e. Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool who had named in the report. The disciplinary authority vide letter dated 24.11.2023 (Annexure-R/11) directed the IO to conduct inquiry taking into :: 11 :: O.A.No.25/2024 consideration of the authenticated document available on the record and examine the aforesaid prime witness.
4.6 The respondent further submitted that the contention of the applicant for the aforesaid character certificate stating that it was a forged document, was devoid of any merit because the issue of authenticity of the document was discussed in detail before CGIT, Mumbai. Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court which was upheld by various courts as an authenticated document issued by the BSNL and based on that the decisions were delivered against the BSNL. Therefore, there was nothing to question the authenticity of these documents. The inquiry authority did not accept the report submitted by the IO wherein he held the charges not proved against CO, the applicant herein and referred back it to the IO for conduct the inquiry based on the authenticated document and examination of the prime witness Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool. It was appropriate to mention that referring back to IO for further inquiry was well within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority according to Rule 15(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which provided as under:-
"15(1) the Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be."
5. The respondent also relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Union of India vs Sardar Bahadur reported in 1972 SLR SC 355; (ii) State of AP vs. Sree Rama Rao reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 and (iii) Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar :: 12 :: O.A.No.25/2024 reported in 1978(2) SLR SC 46 wherein it was laid down that the standard of proof required in a departmental inquiry differs materially from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and that the standard of proof required in a disciplinary inquiry is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the proof required in a criminal court.
6. She further submitted that primarily the subject matter of Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool with reference to the non regularization of his service in the BSNL was pending before the CGIT, Mumbai and Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court which caused delay to decide on the point of conducting Disciplinary action against applicant. Therefore, there was no delay in conducting the inquiry. They justified the delay including the inquiry and concluded the matter.
7. In response to the reply filed by the respondents applicant also filed rejoinder wherein he had reiterated the averments and submission made in the Original Application. In addition to the averments made in the OA, the applicant further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant is President of India who had acted without any application of judicious mind and on the advice of BSNL as reported vide its letter dated 07.07.2022 wherein BSNL had taken a stand that in view of the availability of the CGIT award confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court with reference to the authenticity of the document in question, the driving charge, the said documents were eligible documents and did not require any authentication.
:: 13 :: O.A.No.25/20248. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length; perused the contextual material and records/guidelines of the department.
8.1 It is an admitted fact that the applicant Shri Sandeep Sawarkar is an ITS officer joined in 1987 as ADET. He was issued a Charge Sheet for allegedly engaging a call basis driver viz. Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool inspite of the fact that DoT vide its OM dated 30.03.1985 completely banned for the engagement of casual labour. The applicant was issued charge memorandum wherein he had submitted his statement of defence which was considered by the competent authority. Subsequently, IO and PO were also appointed on 18.04.2023. The IO conducted inquiry as per laid down procedure in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 especially Rules 14 and 15.
8.2 The applicant had participated in the inquiry and he had not raised any bonafide objections to the inquiry, impartiality of the IO and non compliance of natural justice by the IO. He had raised certain issues that the original document of the character and working certificate allegedly said to have been issued to the call basis driver was not given at the time of inquiry. Therefore, he questioned the authenticity of the document. It is an admitted fact that IO submitted his inquiry report wherein he had held charges not proved against the applicant based on the non-availability of the original experience/working certificate said to have been issued by the applicant. However, DA had again directed the IO to conduct the inquiry taking into consideration the authenticated document of the certificate issues by the applicant for the experience and working certificate to :: 14 :: O.A.No.25/2024 Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool which was the main cause of concern wherein BSNL as an organization was forced to appoint the call basis driver as a regular employee on the basis of the certificate issued by the applicant hereinabove mentioned character cum experience certificate to Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the DA, the applicant approached this Tribunal and because of the interim relief granted to the applicant, IO could not submit his final report as yet.
10. The basic issues which are to be decided by this Tribunal are based on the direction that there is a limited scope to review the disciplinary proceeding especially by the Tribunals and Hon'ble High Courts. The Tribunal can intervene in the disciplinary proceedings only when it appears that-
(i) There is a violation of compliance of natural justice in conducting the inquiry.
(ii) The result of the inquiry report thereof, decision of the DA is without any evidence.
(iii) The charge sheet has been issued by incompetent authority.
(iv) The decision is taken on the basis of malaise and perverse.
(v) Error of procedure in disciplinary proceedings.
10.1 In this regard it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under::: 15 :: O.A.No.25/2024
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
10.2 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench in the case of SBI vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457, by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority............"
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, :: 16 :: O.A.No.25/2024 (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103].
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness 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 on 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 are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for :: 17 :: O.A.No.25/2024 disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. 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 those 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."
10.3 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563:
(2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasized about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that:-
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must :: 18 :: O.A.No.25/2024 restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
11. In the present case, it is a fact that charge sheet has been approved by the competent authority i.e., Cabinet Minister, Ministry of Telecom. The inquiry was conducted in the manner as laid down under Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant participated in the inquiry and he also submitted his brief as per his evidence of the charges which were levelled against the applicant.
11.1 It is also an admitted fact that the authenticity of the documents, which was said to have been issued by the applicant as a character/working certificate to Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool on the basis of call basis driver resulted into appointment of the same as regular driver in BSNL, was examined at various stages of the courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there was no doubt about the authenticity of the documents and which is also beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to discuss whether character/working certificate said to have been issued to the call basis driver viz., to Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool was genuine one or was forged by the said person. Therefore, there were sufficient evidences to issue the charge memorandum to the applicant.
:: 19 :: O.A.No.25/202412. It is also settled principle of law that in the matter of disciplinary proceeding, the scope of jurisdiction of Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court to interfere with it to see whether the departmental inquiry and its process concluded in consonance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1964 as applicable in the present case and in the outcome of the said decision making process. Further, it is required to see that whether adequate opportunity has been given to the delinquent officer to explain his stand and the punishment if any imposed is to commensurate the principles to the proved charges/misconduct committed by the CO or not. The Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court are not there to appreciate the evidence or act as an appellate Authority.
13. In the present case, it emerges from the fact that undisputedly the CO participated in the departmental inquiry and he has been given adequate and reasonable opportunity to present his case/defence. As such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice in decision making process. There is no evidence or document on record to show that the impugned decision has been taken based on malafide or there is lack of evidence. At this stage, it is apt to mention that since this Tribunal granted interim relief, the Disciplinary Authority has not passed any final order in record to imposition of punishment. Therefore, there is no question to assess the proportionality of punishment at this stage. Hence, this OA lacks merit and same is accordingly dismissed.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid, in our considered opinion, there is no legal infirmity in the decision making process on the part of Disciplinary Authority. Hence, this OA lacks merit and same is accordingly, dismissed.
:: 20 :: O.A.No.25/202415. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to Costs.
(Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Member (A) Member (J) SKV