Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Mahesh Manikrao Nikam vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 29 November, 2024
:: 1 :: O.A.No.506/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.506/2017
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2024
Reserved On: 06.11.2024
Pronounced On:29.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
MAHESH MANIKRAO NIKAM,
Aged: 41 years (DoB being 07.04.1976),
Son of Shri Manikrao Nikam,
Presently serving as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT)/English
In Jawahar Navodayala Vidyalaya, Bhavnagar
& presently residing at Qtr, No.B/12, JNV, Trapaj (Bungalow),
BHAVNAGAR-364 150
Gujarat.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.S. Rao)
Versus
1. NAVODAYALA VIDYALAYA SAMITI
(Notice to be served through its Commissioner, NVS, No.B-15,
Institutional Area, Sector-62, G.B.Nagar, NOIDA, (U.P)
PIN CODE: 201 309
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ADMN.)
(the Designated Appellate Authority)
NAVODAYALA VIDYALAYA SAMITI No.B-15,
Institutional Area, Sector-62, G.B.Nagar, NOIDA (U.P)
PIN CODE: 201 309
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Navodayala Vidyalaya Samiti,
Pune Region, MSFC BHAVAN,
2nd Floor, B-Wing, Senapati Bapat Road, PUNE 411 016
4. SHRI P.B. PANCHAL,
Retd. Assistant Postmaster General & Inquiry Officer C/o. Sub
Postmaster, C.B.O., Belapur Sector-5.
NAVI MUMBAI 400 614.
:: 2 :: O.A.No.506/2017
5. SHRI R.B. MAURYA
Principal
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Samharipurva, Bhinga,
District:Shrawasti, Uttar Pradesh 271 831
6. THE PRINCIPAL
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Trapaj (Bungalow)
BHAVNAGAR 364 150 Gujarat
7. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Room No.124-C, Shastri
Bhawan,
NEW DELHI 110 001.
......................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew)
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. This OA has been filed by the applicant against the order of Deputy Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) communicated vide order No.PF/PGT/-28/NVS(PR)/2016/4292 dated 23.03.2016 Pune Region whereby a penalty of reduction of his pay by three steps in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with immediate effect was imposed. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following relief:-
"A. Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to call upon the official respondents herein to place before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the entire original file/s, noting file/s, internal correspondence, etc., giving rise to the issuance of the impugned documents at Annexure- A/1 to Annexure-A/5 hereto;
B. Upon the perusal of the said original files, notings, files, internal correspondence, etc., in :: 3 :: O.A.No.506/2017 conjunction with the pleadings contained in the memo of this OA, your Lordships may be graciously pleased to quash and set aside the impugned (i) Charge Memorandum bearing No.PF /PGT/MMN-
28/NVS(PR)/2014/2402 dated 08/16.10.2014 at Annexure-A/1 hereto, (ii) Inquiry Officer's Report bearing No.NIL. dated 10.09.2015 submitted by the respondent no.4 herein at Annexure-A/2 hereto, (iii) Penalty Order bearing No.PF/PGT-
28/NVS(PR)/2016/4292 dated 23.03.2016 at Annexure-A/3 hereto passed by the Disciplinary Authority. (iv) Consequential Order bearing No.F.PF/MMN/KMV/BHAV/2016-17/0413 dated 05.07.2016 at Annexure-A/4 hereto issued by the Principal, JNV, Trapaj (Bungalow), Bhavnagar and (v) Appellate Authority's Order bearing F.No.F-1- 5(7)/2016-NVS-(E-111)/1709 dated 03.02.2017 at Annexure-A/S hereto C. issue appropriate directions to the official respondents herein in the nature of writ of certiorari, to forthwith restore the pay of the applicant herein as it was obtaining prior to the passing of the impugned order of penalty at Annexure-A/3 hereto, with all consequential benefits accruing to the applicants in consequence of the quashing and setting aside of the impugned documents at Annexure-A/1 to Annexure- A/5 hereto;
D. issue further appropriate directions to the official respondents herein, as a consequence of the grant of the aforesaid reliefs, to forthwith regularize the applicant's suspension period between 21.04.2014 and 04.12.2014, more particularly having regard to the fact that on or before the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days w.e.f. 21.04.2014, the competent authority in NVS, Pune Region, has not at all reviewed the applicant's suspension;"
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
2.1 The counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant joined the service of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) as a Post Graduate :: 4 :: O.A.No.506/2017 Teacher in English in the month of August, 2001 in pursuance of offer of appointment issued by the NVS, Regional Office vide its office letter No.F.No.2-7/2001-NVS(SHR)/Pers/975 dated 20/23.07.2001 and posted at NVS, Shillong Liwa Khullen Sarai in District; Chandel of Manipur. Subsequently, he was transferred to JNV as a PGT (English) Teacher at JNV Palghar, District thane of Maharashtra. The applicant argued that in the month of April, 2014, the applicant and one of the students of JNV Palghar lodged a complaint to the Principal, JNV with a malafide motive and intention, which led to issuance of a Memorandum bearing No.F-21.1(Disciplinary matters), JNV, Thane/2014/106 dated 16.04.2016 calling upon the applicant to submit his explanation. The applicant had submitted his explanation to the respondent No.5 on 21.04.2014, wherein he had stated that the allegations levelled against the applicant are fabricated/created one at the instances of respondent No.5, with a view to divert the attention of the school administration.
2.2 Without waiting for the written reply of the applicant, Principal JNV, Palghar, vide its letter No.21.2 (Disciplinary Matter) JNV, Thane/2014/230 dated 21.04.2014 had submitted a false report to the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Pune Region. The Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Pune Region, vide its letter bearing No.F.No.PF-
PGT-Eng-28/NVS(PR)/2013/189 dated 21.04.2014 (Annexure-A/11) had placed applicant under suspension on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant is contemplated and placed his head quarter at Diu which was further shifted to JNV, Daman.
2.3 It is further stated that NVS, Pune after receipt of explanation of applicant had issued a communication vide letter No.F-PF-PGT-Eng- 28/NVS(PR) 2014/287 dated 24.04.2014 to the respondent No.5 to submit his parawise comments alongwith statement of the affected students (in original) as also the statement of concerned medical :: 5 :: O.A.No.506/2017 officer/staff nurse. In response to the above letter from the Deputy Commissioner, NVS Pune Region Principal, NVS, Palghar had submitted parawise comments to the NVS Pune Region. 2.4 After taking into consideration of all the facts, the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Pune Region and Disciplinary Authority had decided to initiate a major penalty departmental disciplinary inquiry against the applicant and issue the charge memorandum dated 08/16.10.2014 called upon the applicant to submit the statement of defence, if any within 10 days. The applicant had submitted written statement of defence to the Deputy Commissioner, NVS through Principal JNV, Daman wherein the applicant had categorically denied the charges levelled against him. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Pune Region without considering the fact submitted by the applicant, appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 02.12.2014 and subsequently, the suspension order was revoked by Deputy Commissioner NVS, Pune Region on 04.12.2014 and applicant was transferred to JNV, Bhavnagar as PGT (English). 2.5 The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer had started proceeding on 13.03.2015; concluded the inquiry on 08.08.2015 and had called upon the Presenting Officer and the applicant to submit their respective brief to the Inquiry Officer to enable him to submit the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Officer had submitted his report on 10.09.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Pune Region wherein the Inquiry Officer had held the charges as Proved to the Hilt. The Inquiry Officer's report was also served to the applicant vide letter No.F.No.PGT/ENG- 28/NVS(PR)/2015/1274 dated 08.10.2015 issued by the Deputy commissioner, NVS, Pune Region whereby the applicant was called upon to submit the representation within 15 days. The applicant has submitted the representation on 29.10.2015 against the said Inquiry Officer's Report to the Disciplinary Authority. After receipt of the :: 6 :: O.A.No.506/2017 representation of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner NVS, Pune Region had decided to impose the penalty of reduction of the applicant's pay by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with immediate effect. Giving effect to the said order of penalty, the Principal, JNV, Trapaj (Bungalow), Bhavnagar vide his Office order dated 05.07.2016, issued the order to regulate the pay of the applicant hereinafter. 2.6 Being aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner imposing major penalty, the applicant has preferred the departmental statutory appeal dated 29.04.2016 to the competent Authority in NVS, HQs, Noida who upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty upon the applicant. Being aggrieved of the said orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, the present OA is filed.
3. Counsel for the applicant has mentioned and argued the following grounds and legal provisions:-
3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the charges levelled against the applicant herein under Articles of charges are fabricated and therefore does not constitute any misconduct within the meaning of the said expression as contained in Rule 4(I) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as the applicant did not inflict any corporal punishment on any of the students in the JNV, Thane, on the said date or even otherwise. The case of the applicant herein is that he had merely scolded the four students in question and counseled them about their safety and security by visiting their "Shivalik" House after the applicant herein had seen them plucking mango from tree adjacent (at about 1.45 am on 15.04.2014) to the dormitory which stands in front of the applicant's residential premises in the JNV residential complex in Thane. Although Shri Ram Kumar Baral, PGT (Georgraphy) in JNV was the house master of the aforesaid Shivalik House, however, he was not staying in the :: 7 :: O.A.No.506/2017 campus. It is relevant to mention that a week before the said incident, a full blooded Cobra was killed in the very same area where the mango tree is located. Under such circumstances and situations, it cannot be said that it is tantamount to inflicting "Corporal punishment", having regard to the fact that even as per the "guidelines" issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on 09.09.2007 on banning of Corporal punishments defines that "Corporal punishment involves rapping on the knuckles, running on the school ground, kneeing down for hours, standing up for long hours, sitting like a chair and beater with a scale, pinched and slapped. Child sexual abuse, torture, lock up students alone in class room, "electric shock" and all other acts leading to insult, humiliation, physical and mental injury and even death."
3.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had become victim of the connivance of the then Principal, JNV, Thane, Shri R.B. Maurya and Shri Ram Kumar PGT (Geography) the housemaster who was not staying in the campus. The said house of "Shivalik" which was against the guidelines issued by JNV, HQ. The issue of the charge memorandum is a cover of excess on the part of the disciplinary authority actuated by the extraneous consideration to shield said Shri Ram Kumar Barai from being questioned as to why he had not been in the said "Shivalik House" inspite of he being the House Master of the said Shivalik House. Rather any fair, impartial and prudent school management would have instead duly appreciated the prompt action of the applicant herein in waking up at such midnight hour and rushing to the aforesaid "Shivalik House"
to scold the 4 students and counsel them about their safety and security.
3.3 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Disciplinary Authority had passed order for imposing major penalty :: 8 :: O.A.No.506/2017 of reduction of pay scale by three stages in the time scale. He further submits that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is not tenable in law on the ground that the same has been passed by the appellate Authority without giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant even though the applicant is specifically requested for the same and applicant had denied an opportunity of being heard. The counsel for the applicant relied on the following orders:-
(a) Ram Chander vs Union of India, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1173.
(b) Yoginath D Bagde vs State of Maharashtra & Another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3734 and
(c) OA No.84/2009 passed by this Tribunal on 18.11.2009 in the matter of Kasim Ibrahim Sumra vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others.
Wherein this Tribunal by placing reliance on the aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, quashed and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority order on the ground that the delinquent was not granted personal hearing inspite of a demand for the same by the delinquent.
3.4 He has also alleged the house master Shri Ram Kumar Barai, PGT (Geography), JNV Thane and Shri R.B Mourya Principal JNV, Thane, who were outsiders and conspire against the applicant. He further requested to quash and set aside the impugned order.
4. The applicant has also filed MA for Condonation of Delay. As per the record, the Original Application has been filed after a delay of 03 years which has been explained by the applicant. But the counsel for the respondents has opposed the said MA. However, after considering all the facts, this Tribunal allowed the MA for Condonation of delay.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the charge memorandum was issued against the applicant while functioning as PGT (English) in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Thane (MS) during the period from 03.07.2004 to 21.04.2014, alleged to :: 9 :: O.A.No.506/2017 have inflicted corporal punishment on Master Nikhil Taravi, Mast, Pratik Shinde, Mast. Gaurav Bonge, all students of Class IX and Master Vinod Rathod student of Class X on 15.04.2014 and thereby violated the NVS Hqrs,. Order No.F.3-223/2013-NVS(SA) dated 18.09.29013 circulated by NVS RO Pune under No.F-3-SA-NVS- (PR)/2013--14/2095 dated 26.09.2013 and thereby behaved in a manner of unbecoming of a Govt. Servant contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 which are applicable to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti employees. 5.1 He further submitted that IO and PO were appointed to enquire on the charges on the basis of principles of natural justice to give adequate opportunity to the charged officer before awarding the punishment of the reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three years on the basis of misconduct and inflicted corporal punishment to the students.
5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in addition to the victims, the Principal, PG Teacher Shri Ramkumar Barai and the Assistant Commissioner (Admn.) NVS, Regional Office Pune, Shri K.Shivram also participated in the inquiry and gave evidences against the applicant.
5.3 It is relevant to mention that the inquiry was conducted after they have complied all the principles and procedures laid down under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant was given reasonable opportunity to submit his defence; to submit the list of evidences and reasonable opportunity to submit explanation on the charges levelled against him.
5.4 Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant is misleading this Tribunal by saying that he did not commit any misconduct and inflict any corporal punishment on the students. According to the applicant, he had only scolded and counseled them. It is not the case as per instruction of the Department that scolding a :: 10 :: O.A.No.506/2017 student does not amount to corporal punishment. The applicant gives out of scale importance to this aspect. On the basis of proven misconduct that he had inflicted corporal punishment to the students, Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty upon the applicant and the same was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The applicant raised several allegations against the students and other teachers including the principal.
5.5 It is a fact that four students have made complaint against the applicant. This has been proved by the Inquiry Officer beyond reasonable doubts and on the basis of the principles of preponderance of probability. Applicant is trying to mislead this Tribunal stating that he has not inflected the corporal punishment on the students and by himself admitting that he merely scolded them for their misconduct and thereby trying to prove that scolding does not fall under the ambit of the definition of corporal punishment. 5.6 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the brief facts of the incident is that all the four students plucked mango from a tree infront of the Charged Officer's quarter in the midnight of 14.04.2021 at about 1.30 AM. When the four students plucked the mangoes, thereafter cutting into pieces in the Shivalik house, the Charged Officer came there and had beaten all the four students, first with hand and thereafter with chappals. Further one of the students, Master Pratik Shinde showed the beaten marks on his body to the Principal in the presence of his father.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submissions made in the Original Application. 6.1 While reiterating most of the submissions submitted in the Original Application, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that he has levelled certain allegations against Shri Panchal, Inquiry Officer, R. V. Mourya, Principlal JNV and Shri Ram Kumar Barai PGT(Geography). Being active party in this case, Shri :: 11 :: O.A.No.506/2017 Panchal and and R.V. Mouriya have not filed any reply in this OA and same has been authorized to the Principal JNV Gandhinagar to file reply on their behalf. It is beyond acceptance that how the Principal Gandhinagar came to know the averments and submissions made during the inquiry? Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have violated the procedure as laid down under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. 6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further reiterated that by relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of i.e, Ram Chander (supra), Yoginath D Bagde (supra), this Tribunal decided the OA No.84/2009 vide order dated 18.11.2009. 6.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further referred to the communication between Principal JNV, Palghar and the Deputy Commissioner, NVS on 21.04.2014 wherein it is explicitly mentioned as follows:-
" In that meeting Mr Nikam has objected that the concerned house masters are staying in the staff quarters instead of warden quarters. Due to this students are not properly controlled."
"On 18.04.2014 (Friday) declared as a Gazatted Holiday as Good Friday. The u/s was in the office of the Principal and attending to parents of the students. In between Mr Barai
- PGT Geo came in the office of the principal with anger and put a letter on my table. He tried to force me to receive the letter and give him the acknowledgement. The u/s told him to wait for a few minutes as I am attending to the parents of the students. But he was in hurry on holiday and went away from the office suddenly with sign of anger. Then I called LDC from his quarter and instructed to him to receive his letter and give him an acknowledgement.:: 12 :: O.A.No.506/2017
Then in evening of 18.14.2014 it came to my knowledge through your good self that he has complained telephonically to Hon.'ble Joint Commissioner, Mr. MS Khanna NVS HQr. Noida about the matter.
Everything was settled about this corporal punishment to the students after 3 days he awakened about the incidence and given the letter."
7. Heard both the learned counsel.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the RTE Act 2009, corporal punishment is applicable only up to Class VIII and students of Class 8, below 14 years of age whereas is in the present case the students were studying in class 9 and 10 and they are above the age of 14 years. He has also argued that the applicant had scolded them keeping into consideration of their security and safety at the time of plucking of mangoes from tree. He had not given any corporal punishment to the students whatsoever including mental harassment.
8.1 It is also submitted that Principal R.V. Mourya and designated housemaster Shri Ram Kumar Barai hatched conspiracy against the applicant which was illegally culminated into submission of the report to the Deputy Commissioner JNV, Pune and thereafter, charge memorandum issued to the applicant.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents' authority has submitted a brief fact on the participation of the applicant in the inquiry including the Principal JNV, Housemaster, Assistant Commissioner Pune region. It is also the fact that the provisions of the RTE 2009 were referred in guidelines for employees of JNV specifically. However, the students who were given corporal punishment are covered by the guidelines issued by JNV. Learned counsel for the respondents emphasized that judicial review has limited scope in the case of disciplinary proceedings.
:: 13 :: O.A.No.506/201710. Learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated that scope of judicial review is limited in the case of disciplinary proceedings. While exercising judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, this Tribunal has to examine whether Charged Officer has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard and principles of nature justice are followed or not?; competent authority has taken a decision for disciplinary proceeding and imposition of the penalty? Whether decision has been taken based on certain evidences and facts on records which have been examined or not? Whether decision has been taken without malafide and perverse or not?
11. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the documents on the records and contextual directions/instructions of the department, it is an admitted fact that Mr.Mahesh Manikrao Nigam, applicant was serving as PGT, English at JNB Palghar District, Thane of Maharashtra in the month of April, 2017. That four students viz, Master Nikhik Taravi, Master Pratik Shinde, Master Gaurav Bonge and Master Vinod Rathod went to pluck mangoes from mango tree which was located near the staff quarter of the applicant. After seeing them plucking mangoes and thereafter cutting of the mangoes in their dormitory, the applicant approached to them and there was exchange of arguments between them. The allegation that applicant Shri Mahesh M. Nikam started slapping hereinabove mentioned four students and thereafter beaten with the chappals. It is also an admitted fact that beating a student with chappals and slapping comes under corporal punishment as defined under Section 17 of the RTE Act, 2009. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti has also issued guidelines whereby detailed guidelines are given for Corporal punishment to the children/students vide F.No.F3-223/2013-NVS(SA) dated September 18, 2018 whereby specifically in para 3, they have mentioned that considering the importance of eliminating corporal :: 14 :: O.A.No.506/2017 punishment in any form from the school system, the Right of the Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 has prohibited 'physical punishment' and 'mental harassment' under Section 17 which provides as under:-
"17 Prohibition of physical punishment and mental harassment to child.
(1) No child shall be subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be liable to disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to such person."
11.1 JNV Samiti has issued further guidelines that the school shall provide all persons and authorities of the school from harassment or victimizing any children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group. They further laid down the detailed guidelines as follows:-
"Physical punishment" is any action that may causes pain, injury and discomfort to a child including causing physical harm to a child with hand or cane/stick, making children assume an uncomfortable position e.g standing on bench or holding ears through legs, detention in the classroom, library or any closed space in the school etc. "Mental harassment" is any non-physical treatment that is detrimental to the psychological wellbeing of a child e.g sarcasm that hurts or lower the child's dignity, calling names and scolding using humiliating adjectives, intimidation, using derogatory remarks on the child, ridiculing the child on background or status or parental occupation, belittling a child in classroom due to his/her inability to meet the teacher's expectations of academic achievement etc. Discrimination" includes prejudiced views and behavior towards any child because of her/his caste/gender, occupation or region."
12. After preliminary enquiry by Additional Commissioner JNV, Pune Region, the applicant was issued show cause to explain his conduct in the incident. Subsequently, he was put under suspension and the competent authority had decided to conduct an enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. It is also an admitted fact that the Charged Officer i.e, the applicant and the Presenting Officer were :: 15 :: O.A.No.506/2017 given adequate opportunity to explain their facts on the charges. The applicant was also asked to submit witnesses and documents to substantiate his defence statement. Initially, the Charged Officer has given the names of two witnesses, however, subsequently he had withdrawn to submit the same in his defence. It is also an admitted fact that there is a limited scope of interference by courts/tribunal in the case of disciplinary proceedings.
13. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to mention 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:
"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."
13.1 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 :: 16 :: O.A.No.506/2017 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, (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;:: 17 :: O.A.No.506/2017
(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 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."
13.2 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563: (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, :: 18 :: O.A.No.506/2017 emphasised 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 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."
14. Mere perusal of above laid down direction by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is explicitly clear that in the matter of disciplinary proceeding while exercising the power of judicial review, the Tribunal/Courts have to examine 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.
15. In the present case, it emerges from the records that on denial of the charges by the applicant, the competent disciplinary authority had decided to initiate the departmental inquiry against the applicant and accordingly had appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.
:: 19 :: O.A.No.506/201715.1 The applicant had participated in the said departmental inquiry held against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. During the said inquiry, the Inquiring Authority had allowed the applicant to produce additional documents in support of his defence. The applicant was allowed to produce his defence witnesses. However, subsequently, the applicant has withdrawn his request to examine his defence witnesses. After following the procedure laid down in Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the CO as well as PO had submitted their written brief/written statement of defence. 15.2 After conclusion of the said departmental inquiry, the Inquiring Authority had submitted his report dated 10.9.2015 before the Disciplinary Authority.
15.3 It is noticed that the Inquiring Authority in his inquiry report had mentioned the details of opportunities provided to the Charged Officer, and after considering the documentary evidence produced by the CO in his defence, examination of the State witnesses and the cross examination by the CO as well the written statement of defence submitted by the CO as well the brief submitted by the PO, the said Inquiring Authority recorded its finding that the charges levelled against the applicant stands established. 15.4 On perusal of the said Inquiry Report, suffice to state that the Inquiring Authority had concluded the inquiry by following the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
16. On receipt of aforesaid Inquiry Report, the same was forwarded to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 8.10.2015 in terms of provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Rules ibid. In response to it, the applicant had submitted his representation before the Disciplinary Authority and requested to exonerate him since the charges are not conclusively proved against him. 16.1 Thereafter, considering the aforesaid representation of the applicant and the Inquiry Report as well as the material on record, :: 20 :: O.A.No.506/2017 the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.3.2016 assigned the reasons for denying the submissions of the CO (applicant) held that the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved and considering the gravity of the charges, imposed the penalty of reduction in his pay by three stages in a time scale for a period of three years within immediate effect and he will not get the increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Further ordered that period of suspension of the applicant has been treated as not on duty.
17. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that corporal punishment as mentioned in Section 17 of the RTE Act, 2009 is applicable to the students up to class of 8 and below the age of 14 and the Disciplinary Authority erred in imposing the penalty upon the applicant is concerned, in our considered view the said submission is not tenable for the reasons that the JNV has taken reference from the RTE but as per guidelines of the JNV Samiti issued vide order No.F.No.F3-223/2013-NVS(SA) dated September 18, 2018, it has been extended to all the children/students studying irrespective of age and class in the JNV. Therefore, the corporal punishment provisions are legally applicable to the students studying in the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Sangatan irrespective of their classes. The decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority for awarding punishment is based on the evidences given by Assistant Commissioner, Pune Region, Principal, Housemaster and other satisfactory evidences like scars on the body of the students and colour photographs submitted by parents of students. 17.1 Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence on record to sustain the charges levelled against the applicant. Suffice to say that the Disciplinary Authority by following the principles of :: 21 :: O.A.No.506/2017 natural justice and the provisions stipulated in Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules ibid passed the impugned punishment order.
18. Further it is noticed that the appeal of the applicant was considered by the Appellate Authority and while rejecting the same, the said Appellate Authority held vide Order dated 3.2.2017 that the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the aforesaid penalty upon the applicant recorded the findings that the charges were proved based on the statements of the students and pardon sought by the charged officer. The applicant/appellant did not raise any new issue which was not previously considered by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the said penalty. In the said facts and circumstances, the Appellate Authority found that the gravity of misconduct vis-à-vis the penalty imposed upon the applicant does not warrant intervention and had upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
19. Therefore, in view of the above factual matrix of the case, we do not find any legal infirmities in decision making process on the part of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Keeping in view the limited scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceeding available to Courts/Tribunal, and in absence of any violation of principles of natural justice and procedural lacuna in the departmental proceeding held against the applicant and in the impugned orders, we decline to interfere in the matter and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
20. Pending MA if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to Costs.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
SKV