Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Krishna I Jadhav vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 30 April, 2026
1
OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00347/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 10.04.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 30.04.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Sri. Krishna I Jadhav,
S/o Ishwarappa Jadhav,
Aged about 56 Years,
R/a. Veera Someshwara Bagar,
Near Jaladharshini,
Hliyal Road
Dharwad- 580003 ......Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri L. Mahesh)
Vs.
1. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner
EPFO, Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
New Delhi- 110066
2. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Also the Appellate Authority,
Zonal Office, Navanagar,
Hubballi - 580025 (Additional Charge)
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-2
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,
Aland Road,
Kalburgi - 585 101 .....Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri M. Pradeep)
KOMAL RANI
KOMA CAT Bangalore
2026.05.08
L RANI12:57:15
+05'30'
2
OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"i) Call for the entire records.
ii) Quash and Set-aside the Impugned Orders bearing No. KN/GLB/RO/KIJ/VIG/ 2022-23/34 & KN/GLB/RO/ KIJ/VIG /2023-24/03, passed by the Respondent No.3 & 2, dated 30/12/2022 & 26.05.2023 at Annexure-A8 & A10, respectively, as the same is unjust arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant back into service as if there was no order of Dismissal against him with all other consequential monetary benefits in accordance with the law.
iv) Pass such other order/directions that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts in in a nutshell are as follows:
Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the applicant in July 2021, while he was working as Senior Social Security Assistant in the Hubballi Office of EPFO.
The Charges pertain to acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000 by the applicant. The Memorandum of Charges essentially depends upon a video CD, in which the act of acceptance of bribe was recorded by a news channel, through a 'Sting Operation'.
The Enquiring Authority submitted his report, duly concluding that all the three charges were proved. The representations of the Charged Officer, both to the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, were considered and rejected KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 3 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE by them and penalty of 'Dismissal from Service' was imposed upon the applicant.
Hence, the applicant approached this court through this OA.
3. Applicant
(i) The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that a Charge Memorandum was issued to the applicant on 26 July 2021, carrying three Articles. The applicant submitted his representation dated 02 August 2021, denying all the charges and pleading his innocence. However, the Respondents rejected his reply and initiated the Disciplinary Proceedings by appointing an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer.
(ii) The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted in complete violation of the law of the land and the prescribed rules and procedures. The Presenting Officer submitted his Brief on 29 July 2022. The applicant submitted his Defence Brief on 1 August 2022, duly highlighting the various aspects of the Disciplinary Proceedings which were in violation of the prescribed law and the rules. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that, the Enquiring Authority submitted his report, concluding that all the three Charges were proved, which was improper, in the light of the issues raised by the applicant.
(iii) The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondent No. 3 who is the Disciplinary Authority, furnished the report to the applicant and afforded an opportunity to him to make a representation. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant avers that the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the Disciplinary Authority, highlighting several procedural irregularities in the conduct KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 4 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of the Disciplinary Proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority, however, without properly examining the specific contentions of the applicant, rejected the same and imposed Penalty of 'Dismissal from the Service' on the applicant on 30 December 2022.
(iv) Aggrieved by this Order, the applicant, submitted his Review Petition to Respondent No. 2, highlighting the illegalities in the Dismissal Order of the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Appellant Authority also upheld Orders of the Disciplinary Authority, in a routine and mechanical way, without due application of mind and without addressing the specific points raised by the applicant in his representation.
(v) Aggrieved, the applicant has approached this court, with an OA in which the Grounds for Relief are as follows:
4. Grounds for Relief:
1. During the course of enquiry proceedings, the Prosecution kept asking several leading questions and also gave answers to the same, which were in violation of the laid down norms and rules.
2. None of the witnesses who was examined by the prosecution submitted or identified any documents, not even the ones which were indicated in the Charge Memo.
3. The so called CD which was listed as a Principal document, alleged to have been containing the video footage of the bribe amount being accepted, was also not KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 5 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE provided to the charged officer throughout the proceedings, nor its contents examined at any point of the enquiry.
4. The charges were solely based on the alleged video footage in the CD, which was neither examined nor its authenticity established through forensic examination by any forensic lab.
5. Acceptance of money would be an offence only if it is with respect to an official favour extended. However, no such infraction is mentioned in the Charge Memo nor time, place, and date of the alleged transaction by the applicant mentioned in the Charge Memo.
6. Since the charges themselves are vague and lacks specificity, these cannot be the basis of imposition of penalty as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ILR 2004 Kar 2240:
"Charge-sheet is the charter of disciplinary action. The domestic/departmental enquiry commences with the service of the charge-
sheet. In other words, before proceeding with the departmental or domestic enquiry against a delinquent official, he must be informed clearly, precisely and accurately of the charges leveled against him. The charge-sheet should specifically set out all charges which the delinquent is called upon to show-cause against and should also state all relevant particulars and details without which he cannot defend himself. The object of this requirement is that the delinquent employee must know what he is charged with and have the adequate opportunity to meet the charge and to defend himself by giving a proper explanation, after knowing the nature of KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 6 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the offence or misconduct with which he is charged, otherwise, it will amount to his being condemned unheard. Fair hearing pre-supposes a precise and definite catalogue of charges so that the person charged may understand and effectively meet it. If the charges are imprecise and indefinite or vague or unintelligible, the person charged could not be able to understand them and defend himself effectively and in those circumstances, the subsequent enquiry would not be a fair and just enquiry. The charged official ought to be informed of the charges leveled against him as also the grounds upon which they are based. Charge of misconduct should not be vague. The charge-sheet must be specific and must set out all the necessary particulars and details irrespective of the fact whether the delinquent knows it or not. The delinquent must be told about the charges clearly and intelligibly and it was not his duty to connect the charge-sheet with his alleged understanding or knowledge of the charge. However, it is true that charges need not be framed with the precision of a charge in criminal proceeding. But, at the same time, it must not be vague or so general as to make it impossible of being traversed.
Therefore, the test is whether the charge conveys to the delinquent employee, the exact nature of the alleged misconduct in a way that would enable him to meet the charge effectively. It is well established that if a vague charge is given to a delinquent, it is a fatal defect, which vitiates the entire proceedings. It is also relevant to notice that the vagueness in the charge is not excused on the plea that the employee concerned should be deemed to have known the facts correctly. It should not be left to the KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 7 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE delinquent official to find out or imagine what the charges against him are and it is for the employer to frame specific charges with full particulars."
7. The Disciplinary Authority did not mention in his memo dated 24.11.2022 whether he agreed or disagreed with the enclosed enquiry report and simply asked applicant to furnish the reply, which indicates his prejudiced mind and his predisposition.
8. Though the Applicant in his reply dated 08.12.2022 clearly mentioned that neither the CD was produced during the course of enquiry nor its authencity has been established, Enquiry Officer in his Report had given a finding, stating as follows :
"AS THE VIDEO EVIDENCE ALONGWITH THE STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE COMPELLING ENOUGH, THEREFORE I CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE PO, THT THE CO HAD INDEED COMMITTED GRAVE MISCONDUCT OF ACCEPTING THE ILLEGAL GRATIFICAITON FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF THE SAID PF SUBSCRIBER".
Furthermore, the Disciplinary Authority did not take cognizance of the facts regarding the authenticity of the CD and it was not even being produced during the course of the enquiry.
9. The request of the Charged Officer to summon the anonymous person who had allegedly recorded the video and copied certain portion of it to the CD was denied which is violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Furthermore, whether the permission granted to this anonymous person to carry out video recording within the premises of a Government office can be considered legal or unauthorised action by KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 8 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the department, is a matter that should have been looked into by the Disciplinary Authority.
10. There was neither any complaint by the PW1 Mr Mahesh Hosur nor any such indication/reference in the Articles of Charges 1, 2 and 3 which means that there is no link between the complaint , the complainant , the CD allegedly made on the basis of this so called non-existent complaint . Hence the Order of Dismissal issued by the Disciplinary Authority, despite lack of linkages is in violation of the statutory law.
11. The fundamental principal of all departmental enquiries is that the burden of proof is on the department and there is a presumption of innocence, on the part of the applicant. However in this case, the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the assumption that the proof of innocence was on the applicant which was contrary to the settled law.
12. The Disciplinary Authority was prejudiced and biased against the applicant. He relied upon evidence in the form of CD which was neither authenticated by any Forensic lab nor even produced during the course of enquiry. The conclusion drawn are based on surmises, conjectures & personal beliefs, which are not supported by any solid evidence.
13. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant places reliance upon and invites our attention to several judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts to substantiate his assertions mentioned above.
14. These are reproduced ad verbatim as follows:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 9 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The Apex Court in Nirmala J. Jhala's case held that the disciplinary proceeding/departmental proceeding is quasi-judicial and quasi criminal proceeding and the burden of proof cannot be shifted by the prosecution to the delinquent and the conclusion cannot be reached by shifting the burden of proof of negative circumstances upon the delinquent. Para 39 of the SCC in Nirmala J. Jhala's case (Supra) reads as follows:-
"39. More so, the High Court has reached the conclusion by shifting the burden of proof of negative circumstances upon the Appllicant. The High Court has erred by holding that in respect of the incident dated 17-8-1993 i.e. demand of amount, it was the duty of the Appllicant to explain the said circumstance, and that instead of giving any satisfactory explanation in respect of entry of Shri. C.В. Gajjar, she had completely disowned and denied any such occurrence. The onus was always on the Department to prove the said circumstance. The Court should have also taken note of the fact, that the matter was adjourned for 28-8-1993, and being a 4th Saturday, it was a holiday. The Court further committed an error by holding, that the failure to challenge the most crucial element of the evidence, regarding the incident of 17-8-1993, in respect of a demand of bribe of Rs.20,000 fully justified the findings of the enquiry officer. Again, the High Court shifted the onus to prove a negative circumstance on the Applicant."
15. According to Learned Counsel for the Applicant, there are several instances of grave misdeeds shown by the Disciplinary Authority which he has delineated as follows:
THE CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE - I
(a) The Disciplinary Authority has gone under the wrong premise that the video is genuine as the IO has concluded so.
b) There is no reference to the Complaint of any sort against the Applicant in the statement recorded by the witness and as such it appears that there is a specific complaint against the charged official.
(c) That there is no proof of demand and the accepting and the recovery of the alleged illegal gratification in question.
(d) The CD do not appear to be relevant, as none of those had any electronic evidence in the form of video footage.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 10 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(e) The statements of the witnesses are not corroborated by any evidence etc. THE CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE - II
(a) The Disciplinary Authority has gone under the wrong premise that the charge is proved as the IO has concluded so.
(b) There is no reference to any document or evidence from the witnesses of any sort against the Applicant to substantiate this charge.
(c) The statements of the witnesses are not at all available to this charge against the Applicant.
THE CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE - II
(a) There is absolutely no evidence to this charge in the entire proceedings. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant repeatedly asserts that the Disciplinary Authority had a predisposed mind towards the charged officer. In this regard, he cites Para 3 of the Penalty Order which states as follows:
"It is noticed that the facts as submitted by the CO vide his representation dt & 12.2022 has already been presented before the Inquiry Officer and Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration, the submission made by the CO while finalizing his report. Now, no new fact has been submitted by Co vide his representation dt 8.12.2022 and I accept the inquiry report against the CO."
17. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority had drawn upon the notification dated 4 June 2005 which is not even remotely connected to the Articles of Charges against the applicant. He alleged that the Disciplinary Authority based his decision on his personal knowledge instead of trying to dwell upon the issue of demand and KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 11 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE acceptance of bribe and whether the applicant had the necessary powers to do the pending work. He again cites a particular para on Page 4 of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority, to support his assertion that the Disciplinary Authority was biased and had a perverse mindset. The para is as follows:
"Since grave acts of misconduct cannot be treated with leniency especially when the charge is relating to illegal gratification and theory by sending a wrong signal to all the stake holders of the organisation and the society in general"
He reiterates that a departmental enquiry which can form the basis for the imposition of a penalty on a civil servant must be conducted by an unbiased officer. Any enquiry conducted by a biased officer vitiates the departmental enquiry and any penalty imposed on the basis of such an enquiry is liable to be set aside.
18. The Apex Court in K.I. Shephard & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 686 held as under:-
"It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose."
Once the Disciplinary Authority has made up his mind to impose a penalty, he will not change the same on the basis of the representation made by the Government servant. It is also seen that the Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority and the Review Authority have rejected the appeal/petitions of the Applicant in a mechanical manner.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M. V. Bijlani vs Union of India & Ors which is as follows:
"It appears to us that the disciplinary authorities proceeded on a wrong premise. The Applicant was principally charged for non-maintenance of KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 12 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE ACE-8 Register. He was not charged for theft or misappropriation of 4000 kgs of telegraph copper wire or misutilization thereof. If he was to be proceeded against for misutilization or misappropriation of the said amount of copper wire, it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to frame appropriate charges in that behalf. Charges were said to have been framed after receipt of a report from CBI (Anti-Corruption Bureau). It was, therefore, expected that definite charges of misutilization/misappropriation of copper wire by the Applicant would have been framed. The Applicant, therefore, should have been charged for defalcation or misutilization of the stores he had handled if he was to be departmentally proceeded against on that basis. The second charge shows that he had merely failed to supervise the working of the line. There was no charge that he failed to account for the copper wire over which he had physical control."
20. Further the impugned order is not a reasoned order in as much as no reasons are based or supported in the issuance of such a one. In State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 2205, the Court observed that "7....Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review."
21. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action.
22. In Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 1407, the Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne out from the record. The Court further observed:
"47....Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was C/SCA/16195/2020 ORDER activated and KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 13 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21."
23. In Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336, placing reliance on its various earlier judgments held as under:
"27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice - delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice.
"3. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind."
24. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 14 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected."
25. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 71, this Court held that on charge of misconduct the authority holding the inquiry must record reasons for reaching its conclusion and record clear findings. The Court further held:
"30. ... In fairness and justice, the member is entitled to know why he has been found guilty. The case can be so serious that it can attract the harsh penalties provided by the Act. Moreover, the member has been given a right of appeal to the High Court under S. 22 A of the Act. The exercise his right of appeal effectively he must know the basis on which the Council has found him guilty. We have already pointed out that a finding by the Council is the first determinative finding on the guilt of the member. It is a finding by a Tribunal of first instance. The conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee does not enjoy the status of a "finding". Moreover, the reasons contained in the report by the Disciplinary Committee for its conclusion may or may not constitute the basis of the finding rendered by the Council. The Council must, therefore, state the reasons for its finding".
26. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAGDISH PRASAD v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in AIR 1994 SC 1251. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the testimony of witnesses is clouded with grave suspicion and discrepancy, particularly, recording of statement of witnesses, the conviction based on such testimony is not safe. In the instant case, the statement of the PW1 and PW3 creates suspicion about the involvement of the accused/respondent as set out by the Prosecution. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJ KUMAR SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 2013 SC 3150. In the said judgment, at paragraph 17 it is observed thus:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 15 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "17. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved and 'will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense."
27. As regards drawing of conclusion with regard to guilt is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of BRAJENDRASINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, has observed that there must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. In the said judgment, at paragraph 16, it observed as follows:
"16. there is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 16 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person...."
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 16 January, 2015 referring to its earlier decision In Maya Devi v. Raj Kumari Batra ((2010) 9 SCC 486: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 842] this Court held that "the disclosure of application of mind is best demonstrated by recording reasons in support of the order or conclusion. The Court observed: (SCC p. 495, paras 28-30) "28. ... There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints. That is so even when a court or other authority may be vested with wide discretionary power, for even discretion has to be exercised only along well recognized and sound juristic principles with a view to promoting fairness, inducing transparency and aiding equity.
29. It is the settled law that the Inquiry Officer cannot split one charge framed by the Disciplinary Authority and come to his own finding in respect of one part of the charge. The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Bank of India Vs. Tapan Kumar Sheel (2007 (3) LLJ 934] held as follows:
"Undisputedly, charges can be framed by the disciplinary authority and not the Inquiry Authority. The Inquiry Authority is required to enquire into the charges already levelled against the concerned employee by the disciplinary authority and specifically mentioned in the chargesheet. Therefore, the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet cannot be split into different ingredients by the Enquiry Authority as has been erroneously done in this case."
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 17 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms in a catena of decision has held that the Disciplinary Authority has an objective duty and adjudicatory responsibility, to consider and impose proper penalty consistent with the magnitude or the gravity of the misconduct. The statute or statutory rules have graded power and authority to the Disciplinary Authority to impose either of the penalties enumerated in the relevant provisions. It is, necessarily the maximum or the minimum. Based on the facts, circumstances, nature of imputation, the gravity of misconduct, the indelible effect or impact on the discipline or morale of the employees, the previous record or conduct of the delinquent and the severity to which the delinquent will be subjected to, may be some of the factors to be considered.
31. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has subsequently also questioned the Order passed by the Appellate Authority. He states that it is the settled position that Appellate Authority in a disciplinary proceedings acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and the order passed by it has to be a reasoned one showing application of mind to the question raised by the Applicant and if that is not done, the appellate order is vitiated. In this regard, he places reliance on the following:
(a) In a case reported in 2008 (3) SCC 469 [Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Madhusudanrao) non application of mind is manifest where an appeal against order of dismissal passed by Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority by simply adopting the language employed by the Disciplinary Authority refuses to interfere with the dismissal order.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 18 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(b) In the case of Director Marketing Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Santosh Kumar [2006 (11) SCC 147] it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the order of Appellate Authority is bereft of reasons, it would amount to violation of rules and natural justice.
(c) In 2006 (4) SLR 566 [Hansraj Vs. Union of India (Delhi Division Bench) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellate authority while deciding a statutory appeal is not only required to give a hearing to the government servant but pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised in the appeal.
(d) In the case of of Mathura Prasad Vs. Union of India & Others [AIR 2007 SC 381] it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "19. When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under sub-Rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a judicial review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or passes an order without application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the principles of judicial review."
32. It is relevant to note here that in terms of the EPF CCA Rules 23(2), in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 19 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(a) Whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;
(b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and
(c) Whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or serve; and pass orders
(i) Confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or
(ii) Remitting the case to the authority which imposed or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
33. The petitioner place a strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal and Anr., wherein the Court has observed that the punishment to be imposed whether minor or major depends upon the nature of every case and the gravity of the misconduct proved. The authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
34. On the contrary a penalty disproportionate to the alleged misconduct despite being proved as required under the law is imposed. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh010 this Court held: [SCC p. 453, SCC (L&S) p. 353, para 15] It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The point to note, and emphasise is that all powers have legal limits. KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 20 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
35. In the present case the punishment is so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference.
5. Reply The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has furnished his reply. In his reply, he has stated as follows:
1. The Applicant, referred to as Charged Official, while working as Sr.SSA in Pension Section at Regional Office, Hubali during 2018-19 committed grave misconduct as he demanded Rs.4000/- from Shri Mahesh P Hosur bearing PF Account No. GBHBL00405200000000421 and UAN 100923519043 for settlement of his EPF & EPS account and accepted Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification.
2. The charged official, got involved in the matter, which did not pertain either to his section or to his seat and entertained the composite claim of Shri Mahesh P Hosur bearing PF Account No. GBHBL00405200000000421 and UAN 100923519043 for settlement of EPF and EPS with an ulterior motive.
3. The charged official, suppressed the fact of acceptance of bribe of Rs.2000/-
before his superiors and gave false statement to Shri K Chakrapani, APFC (HRM) on 14.2.2019.
4. The charged official failed to maintain absolute Integrity, devotion to the duty and high ethical standards, acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of EPFO and his acts were in violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, rules, Regulations and established practices and thereby he violated the Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) &3(1)(vi) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which are applicable mutatis-mutandis to the employees of CBT, EPF/EPFO in-terms of Regulations 18 and 22 of EPF(Officers and Employees Conditions of Services) Regulations 2008. KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 21 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The Charges were framed by Disciplinary Authority against the delinquent employee under Rule 10 of the EPF (CCA) Rules 1971 vide memorandum No.KN//HBL/ZO/2021-22/272 dated 26-07-2021 and an inquiry initiated vide Office Order No.KN/GLB/RO/2021-22/47 dated 13-08-2021.
6. The Inquiry Officer, considered the inquiry by following due process and finally submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority vide letter no. KN/RO/HBL/ADM/2022-23 dated 12/08/2022. The Inquiry Officer, concluded that the charges made out in Article-I, Article-II and Article-III against the CO were clearly established. The Inquiry Report was also served upon the charged official which was duly received by the later vide acknowledgment dated 24.11.2022. The Disciplinary Authority gave time of 15 days to the charged official to submit any representation in this matter upon the Inquiry report. The charged official submitted his reply vide letter dated 08/12/2022.
7. Considering the grave nature of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority after following due procedure in exercise of powers vested vide Rule 8(3) of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 and after application of mind, imposed a major penalty of "DISMISSAL" from the services of the Central Board of Trustees, EPFO on the Charged Official.
8. The charged official then filed an appeal dated 23.01.2023 before the Appellate Authority. After carefully going through documents on record, the charge Memorandum, the Order of the Disciplinary Authority and comments on the case from the Disciplinary Authority and the grounds produced for appeal made by the Charged Official observed:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 22 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "The Article-I of the Charge Memorandum dated: 26.07.2021 was that Shri Krishna I Jadhav, SSSA has demanded Rs 4000/-and accepted Rs 2000/- as illegal gratification from Mahesh P Hosur for settlement of his EPF and EPS account. On verification of Records, it has seen notices that the appellant himself in his statement dated 11.04.2019 given to AD(Vig) admitted that he has accepted illegal gratification and further RPFC-I, EPFO, RO Hubli after watching the video vide her letter No. KN/GLB/HBL/ADM/VIG-1/2018-19/45 dated 22.05.2018 confirmed that the official is receiving some currency. That Charged Official and his defense Assistant have all the rights to demand for documentary evidence such as the CD which contains the video of accepting the illegal gratification, however, he has not raised any objection when the opportunity given to present his version and come up with new submission after concluding the inquiry and holds no merit. Further it is noticed that, during the hearing the charged official had not produced any defense witness or any documentary evidence or strongly counters the charges framed against him."
9. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority vide Order vide letter no KN/HBL/ZO/KIJ Appeal/2023-24/150 dated 26.05.2023 in exercising the powers conferred under Rule 20 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules 1971, upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and disposed the appeal accordingly. The decision of the Appellate Authority was made following the due process and was done impartially, guided solely by the merits of the case and adherence to applicable rules, regulations and principles of natural justice.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents points out that most of the paragraphs in OA are repetition of the earlier part or later part and hence all the KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 23 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE paragraphs are replied at a stretch, to avoid repetition of facts, the law and the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority.
11. He submits that no leading questions or rather irrelevant questions was carried out by the prosecution side. The Inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer by following the Principle of Natural Justice giving due opportunity to charged official to prove his innocence. The inquiry was made well within the framework as per Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (Classifications, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents avers that since the Inquiry Officer is expected to bring out the correct facts of the case in accordance with the prescribed procedure and to ensure an impartial and fair hearing to the charged official, he would naturally delve deeper and ask certain questions to clarify the doubts, if any.
12. Refuting the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant regarding non production of CD, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that Charged Official and his defence Assistant had all the rights to demand for documentary evidence such as the CD which contains the video of accepting the illegal gratification. However, he did not raise any objection when the opportunity was given to present his version and come up with new submission after concluding the inquiry. During the hearing, the charged official had not produced any defense witness or any documentary evidence to counter for charges framed against him. He further points out that the footage in the video CD shows the Charged Officer receiving some currency. Furthermore, the charged official himself in his statement dated 11.04.2019 given to AD(Vig) admitted that he has accepted illegal gratification.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 24 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
13. The Inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry officer following the principle of natural justice and charges were proved. The authenticity of the evidence on record was not questioned by the CO during the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer has filed his detailed report. Inquiry Officer in his report mentioned that RPFC-I RO, Hubballi after watching the video vide her letter No. KN/GLB/HBL/ADM/VIG-I/2018-19/45 dated 22.05.2018 confirmed that "the video appears to be taken in the office and shows Shri Krishna I Jadhav, Sr. SSA receiving some currency".
14. Defending the conduct of disciplinary proceedings by the Inquiring Authority, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents asserted that all other allegations made against these respondents, the inquiry officer and the Appellant authority, are denied as false and incorrect and the Applicant is put to strict proof of the same. The Concerned officials of TV1 who recorded the video were examined by the Inquiry Officer. They were also cross examined by the Applicant. Hence, there is no question of the Inquiry Officer keeping any person under anonymity.
15. Regarding cognizance taken by the respondents of the complaint of asking bribe by the charged officer, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that a complaint can be received from any source. After proper investigation competent authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In the instant case, Regional PF Commissioner-I RO, Hubli vide her letter dated: 22.05.2018 reported that some persons stating to be from Fact TV had orally complained against CO. Consequently, the Charges were framed by vigilance Head Quarters and Charge Sheet was issued to CO.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 25 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
16. Responding to the averment of learned Counsel for the applicant that the burden of proof is not on the charged officer but the Inquiring Authority, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that as per the SC ruling in the SBI vs AGD Reddy (2023) [Civil Appeal No. 11196 of 2011] dated 24th August 2023, in a disciplinary proceeding, the issue of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the respondent. The Court also said that the burden may be shifted to the respondent depending upon the explanation. Therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the Inquiry Officer or the DA.
17. Responding to the charge of Learned Counsel for the applicant regarding the illegality of Sting Operation by a TV Channel, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that media is recognized as the fourth pillar of our democracy. It plays a crucial role in discovering the truth. To bring truth in front of the general public, it uses various investigative techniques, one such being Sting Operation. A Sting Operation is an investigative tool used by the media to uproot the malpractices existing in society. In the instant case, the sting operation was carried out in the larger interest of the society and under the broader fundamental rights of media given under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
18. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that Disciplinary Authority after convincing itself fully that charges have been proved, proceeded further as per the Employee's Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 for imposing penalty and due procedure for the same was adopted. Considering the grave nature of charges, Disciplinary authority took a view to impose penalty of Dismissal from the services on the charged official. The Disciplinary Authority has KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 26 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE imposed penalty of "Dismissal" from the services on the Charged Official purely based on the merit of the case.
19. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents reiterates that the Inquiry Officer's Report clearly mentions on Page No. 3 that the Charged Officer and his Defence Assistant had inspected the documents listed along with the charge sheet, which include the CD. He did not demand production of the CD. Likewise, the refutation by the Learned Counsel for Respondents of certain questions raised by the Counsel for applicant are summarised as follows:
20. The Charges under Article-I
(a) Statement of Complainant was recorded by The IO on 29.12.2021 in Daily Order Sheet No 4, in which he mentioned that Shri. Krishna I Jadhav asked for Rs 4000/- for settlement of claim.
(b) Evidence on record establishes acceptance and recovery of alleged illegal gratification.
(c) IO concluded his findings after considering the submission made by the CO, PO, statements given by the witnesses and other evidences on record. The charges of misconduct are related to demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same which has been proved beyond doubt.
The Charges Under Article-II: (a) (b) (c) The Inquiry officer after considering all evidence on records, statement of both the prosecution witnesses and defense witness and evidence on record, concludes that the charges have been proved. Disciplinary Authority did not find any reason to differ from the findings of IO.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 27 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
21. Rules 7 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules inserted vide Notification No. HRD/P.IV/2(6)84/CCA/Voll. II dated 04.06.2005 provides that in every case in which the charge of possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, charge of acceptance from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration, for doing or forbearing official act is established, the penalty of "Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment under Central Board" or "Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment under the Central Board" shall be imposed.
22. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty considering the grave nature of charges and after 2nd stage view of Central Vigilance Officer, EPFO in view of the Vigilance Headquarters, New Delhi Circular No.Vig/Coord/DP/Gen/2020/715 dated 05.08.2020.
23. The Appellate Authority diligently applied his mind to the appeal of the applicant and upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority based on thorough examination of the evidence on records. The decision of the Appellate Authority was made following the due process and was done impartially, guided solely by the merits of the case and adherence to applicable rules, regulations and principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority has upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and disposed the appeal duly following the rules as laid down in the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971. His findings and comments are clearly mentioned in Page 4 and 5 of the Order dated 26.05.2023. KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 28 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
6. Rejoinder The Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted a detailed and comprehensive Rejoinder in response to the reply filed by the counsel for the respondents. In this rejoinder, the counsel for the applicant contested and refuted the averments of the counsel for respondent, mentioned in his reply. It is seen that substantial portion of the rejoinder is a mere reiteration and reaffirmation of issues raised by him in the OA itself. The contentions of the Counsel for the Applicant in the rejoinder are summarised as follows:
1. The applicant did not have the responsibility / discretion / powers to do any favour to the complaint as he was working in a different section / unit. Thus, the very charges against him are absurd. The Learned Counsel for the applicant points out that the allegation of taking money as bribe would be considered an offence only if the applicant was in a position to do any official favour. The same is not indicated anywhere in the articles of charges.
2. There is no mention of the date, month, time and place of the alleged incident of taking bribe, which makes the charge imprecise. In this regard he highlights the following words of the Charge Memo: "during the period of 2018-2019 at Regional Office has suppressed the fact of acceptance of bribe of Rs 2000/- before his superior's and gave false statement to shri K Chakrapani APFC (HRM) on 14.2.2019".
3. He states that the Disciplinary Authority acts with a biased and predisposed mind, which is in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. The Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that the Disciplinary Authority had simply signed on the dotted KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 29 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE line on the draft charge sheet received from the Head Office vide letter dated 19th July 2021. The DA had not applied any mind to the same which is in violation of Rule 10 sub rule 3 of the Annexure R-2 produced by the Respondents themselves.
4. The Disciplinary Authority has neither discussed nor analysed the contentions made by the applicant in reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 08 December 2022.
This is indicative of arbitrariness and illegality on the part of the DA.
5. He places Reliance on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Court in the case of H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd vs Mahesh Dahiya which is as follows.
"26. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have heavily relied on the fact that before forwarding the copy of the report by letter dated 02.04.2008 the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members have already formed an opinion on 25.02.2008 to punish the writ petitioner with major penalty which is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that before making opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit the representation/reply on the enquiry report which finds a charge proved against the delinquent. The opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members on 25.02.2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments of the writ petitioner on the enquiry report. The writ petitioner in his representation to the enquiry report is entitled to point out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in appreciation of evidence, any misleading of evidence both oral and documentary. In his representation any inputs and explanation given by the delinquent are also entitled to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority before it embarks with further proceedings as per statutory rules. We are, thus, of the view that there was violation of principle of natural justice at the level of Disciplinary Authority when opinion was formed to punish the writ petitioner with dismissal without forwarding the enquiry report to the delinquent and before obtaining his comments on the enquiry report. We are, thus, of the view that the order of the High Court setting aside the punishment order as well as the Appellate order has to be maintained.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 30 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
6. The very Chief Examination is extracted by the enquiry officer in his report, deliberately choosing to discard the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, show the apparent illegality committed in as much as, leading to manipulation of the evidence is admittedly forthcoming.
7. Responding to the averment of Learned Counsel for the respondents that the charged officer did not ask for video CD to be produced during the course of disciplinary proceedings, he points out that Right to Silence is a Constitutional right which was exercised by the applicant. Non-protection of any defence witnesses or documents to counter the charges by the applicant cannot be held against him as has been done by the respondents.
8. He also asserts that the orders issued by the Appellate Authority were not a Speaking Order and was done in a mechanical manner.
9. Furthermore, the marking of the documents by the Enquiring Officer was not as per the laid down procedure. A document can be marked only after it has been identified by author and signed by him which was not the case here.
10. He further points out that on one hand the Presenting Officer admitted that he could not produce witness No 5 due to his non-availability, and on the other hand the Enquiry Officer stated that the evidence of witness No. 5 was compelling enough to hold the charges against the applicant.
11. He argues that there was hardly any analysis of evidence done by the Enquiry Officer which is evident from the absence of details of Chief Examination or cross examination in his report.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 31 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
12. The Counsel for the Applicant reiterates that several leading questions were asked by the Enquiry Officer which has also been admitted by the respondents in their reply. This in view was violation of the laid down procedure.
13. He reiterates that the CD, having video footage of the bribing accepted, was not produced during the course of the enquiry proceedings. Thus the whole thing is baseless and a concocted story, as the concerned Section Supervisor was one Mr. Krishna Singh Rajput not Krishna I Jadhav is not appreciated while the said officials learning about the blunder committed by them even removed footage of the video from the YouTube. Furthermore, his authenticity has not been established in any forensic science lab.
14. He reiterates for the nth time that the contention of the applicant in his reply to the Show Cause Notice regarding the fact that neither the CD was produced during the enquiry nor its authenticity has been established and hence the enquiry was vitiated, was simply ignored by the DA.
15. Challenging the authenticity of the CD, the Counsel for the Applicant invites our attention to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K Basheer's case which states as follows: "Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision etc., without such safe guard the whole trial is based on such proof of electronic record can lead to travesty of justice. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The question would arise as to the genuineness there of and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45 A opinion of examiner of electronic evidence". KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 32 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
16. He also avers that the Disciplinary Authority failed to see whether the Enquiry was conducted strictly as per the provisions of Rules, more particularly to that of Rule 23(1) which stipulates that:
After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain-
a) The articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
b) The defence of the Government servant in respect of each articles of charge;
c) An assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge;
d) The findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor.
17. The Counsel for the Applicant has reiterated that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was also cryptic and mechanical one and there was no application of mind, no appreciation of the evidence on record by him. He invites our attention to Rule 6 of EPF CCA Rules which states the following:
The Appellate Authority shall consider
(a) Whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with, and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;
(b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and
(c) Whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or serve; and pass orders
(i) Confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or
(ii) Remitting the case to the authority which imposed or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case is also not disputed thus admitted as they have no answer to the same.
18. The Applicant reiterates and sums up the crucial points regarding the conduct of the processing as follows:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 33 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(i) None of the witness who was examined on the prosecution side submitted any documents, let alone the ones mentioned in the Charge Memorandum during their evidence / depositions. The so called CD alleged to have been containing the video footage was also not produced by any of the prosecution witnesses and the same was not provided or furnished to the Applicant.
(ii) If the CD is taken on record then, Who, Where and How, of the same was to be tested or examined in any forensic science lab so as to find out the authenticity or genuineness of the footage.
(iii) A perusal of the charge memo do not point out any infraction of the nature of this sort, that apart no Time, Place and Date of the alleged incident is even forthcoming from the said charges levelled against him.
(iv) Applicant has narrated his version exhaustively in the written brief summary, which is completely disregarded and disbelieved by the authorities all along.
(v) No inquiry much less the one for imposition of major penalty could be imposed, unless and until the so called CD is produced during the enquiry, let alone the authenticity of the CD is established in a manner known to the law.
(vi) The Inquiry officer contrary to the law in that regard and also contrary to the rules under which he is appointed to conduct inquiry gave a finding that "AS THE VIDEO EVIDENCE ALONGWITH THE STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE COMPELLING ENOUGH, THEREFORE I CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE PO, THT THE CO HAD INDEED COMMITTED GRAVE MISCONDUCT OF ACCEPTING THE ILLEGAL GRATIFICAITON FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 34 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE THE SAID PF SUBSCRIBER". Hence for this reason alone the FINDING is not correct in the eye of law.
(vii) The settled position of the law that prevails today is that, the onus or the burden of proof is completely on the Department / Organization to establish the charges made against the Applicant, while doing so the presumption is that the charged officer is innocent.
(viii) Detailing the misdeeds of the Disciplinary Authority, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant pointed out as follows:
THE CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE - I
(a) The Disciplinary Authority has gone under the wrong premise that the video is genuine as the IO has concluded so.
(b) There is no reference to the Complaint of any sort against the Applicant in the statement recorded by the witness and as such it appears that there is a specific complaint against the charged official.
(c) That there is no proof of demand and the accepting and the recovery of the alleged illegal gratification in question.
(d) The CD do not appear to be relevant, as none of those had any electronic evidence in the form of video footage.
(e) The statements of the witnesses are not corroborated by any evidence etc. THE CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE - II
(a) The Disciplinary Authority has gone under the wrong premise that the charge is proved as the IO has concluded so.
(b) There is no reference to any document or evidence from the witnesses of any sort against the Applicant to substantiate this charge.
(c) The statements of the witnesses are not at all available to this charge against the Applicant.
THE CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE - II
(a) There is absolutely no evidence to this charge in the entire proceedings.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 35 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(b) It is unacceptable that the Charge itself say that, the Letter dt 14.12.2019 is a false statement by the Applicant while the same becomes false reply later and further saying that the individual statements before various authorities of accepting/denying the allegations are not being considered as evidence etc.
(ix) He further states that the manner in which the Applicant is punished is highly disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed in an inquiry itself, where action is required to be dropped for lack of evidence.
19. Regarding the quantum of punishment, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that the facts, circumstances, nature of imputation, the gravity of misconduct, the indelible effect or impact on the discipline or morale of the employees, the previous record or conduct of the delinquent and the severity to which the delinquent will be subjected to, are some of the factors that should be considered. Each case must be considered in the light of its own scenario. Therefore, a duty and responsibility is cast on the disciplinary authority to weigh the pros and cons, consider the case and then impose appropriate punishment, which the Disciplinary Authority failed to do.
7. Additional Reply The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has filed a detailed and comprehensive Additional Reply, in response to the Rejoinder filed by the Counsel for the Applicant. In the Additional Reply, the Counsel for the Respondents has furnished para wise remarks, contesting and refuting the arguments of the counsel for the applicant. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the essence and sum of the arguments of the Counsel for Respondents are reproduced as below:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 36 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
1. The averments made by the applicant are incorrect and baseless. The Departmental Enquiry was conducted fairly and impartially, considering all evidence presented, including the submissions made by the Applicant. The decision to dismiss the Applicant was based on the principle of preponderance of the evidence, which clearly demonstrated culpability on the applicant's part.
2. While the Applicant may not have had direct responsibility for the specific section, involvement in the broader process or knowledge of the composite claim does not negate potential wrongdoing. The lack of a specific job duty for the composite claim does not preclude the Applicant's potential involvement or knowledge in the commission of misconduct. He engaged in misconduct beyond the charter of his designated tasks. The charges are not "ridiculous" but are based on the findings of the investigation.
3. The language used in the Charge Memo is clear, concise, and adheres to proper legal standards. The Articles of Charge describe different aspects of potentially dishonest behaviour and are sufficiently specific to inform the Applicant of the nature of the accusations against them.
4. The Principle laid down in the case of H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd vs Mahesh Dahiya is not applicable to the facts or the present case. The facts of the H.P. State Electricity Board case differ significantly from the present case.
5. The Head Office had forwarded only the draft copy of the charge memorandum and not the final copy. The Disciplinary Authority independently reviewed the materials on record before issuing the charge memo thus complying with Rule 10 sub rule 3 of Annexure R-2.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 37 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
6. The applicant was given 15 days to submit any representation in this matter upon the Inquiry report. The charged official submitted his reply vide letter dated 08/12/2022. It was also considered while issuing the order by Disciplinary Authority. Hence, it is totally wrong to say that there was no opportunity given to the applicant. The charges against the applicant are proved beyond doubt by the Enquiry Officer.
7. The Disciplinary Authority carefully reviewed all materials on record, including the Applicant's reply. The Respondents followed established procedure throughout the disciplinary process.
8. With regard to Para 6 of Rejoinder: The focus of the report is to present the key findings and reasoning behind the inquiry officer's conclusions. The Respondent maintains that the inquiry was conducted fairly and impartially.
9. The appeal dated 23.1.2023 was thoroughly examined. The impugned order demonstrably has outlined the charges, findings, and justification for the penalty. Thus, the Order of the Appellant Authority is a Speaking Order.
10. The Inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer by following the principle of natural justice giving due opportunity to the charged official to prove his innocence. The inquiry was made well within the framework of Rule 10 of The EPF Staff (Classifications, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1971. The respondents' statement regarding the questioning process does not imply an admission of illegality but rather an explanation of the procedure followed during the enquiry.
11. The inquiry officer carefully evaluated all evidence, including witness testimonies and the Applicant's confession. All the facts and circumstances as KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 38 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE presented by all the prosecution witnesses and the submission made by the Defense Assistant were considered by the Inquiry Officer.
12. The IO report demonstrates a clear understanding and analysis of the evidence presented, including the Applicant's defense arguments.
13. The Disciplinary Authority demonstrably applied its mind to the evidence. It is reiterated that the Disciplinary Authority tentatively accepted the Inquiry Report of Inquiry Officer as is clearly mentioned on Page 3 of the Order of the Disciplinary Authority, based on evidence on record without any biased mind. The Disciplinary Authority did not find any reason to differ from the findings of the Inquiry Officer and accordingly, after tentatively accepting the Inquiry Report, the same was served on the CO. This is clearly mentioned in the Order issued to the Charged Official.
14. The contention of Learned Counsel for the applicant that the respondents relied Only on the video footage is incorrect. It is reiterated that the inquiry officer carefully evaluated all evidence, including witness testimonies and the documents on record. The video footage is a valid piece of evidence considered during the inquiry. The authenticity of the evidence on record was not questioned by the CO during the inquiry.
15. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents emphasized that the respondents had not shifted the burden of proof onto the Applicant. He states that as per Law the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings rests with the party making the accusations. The applicability of any case law depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. As per the SC ruling in the SBI vs AGD Reddy (2023), in a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 39 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the respondent. The Court also said that the burden may be shifted to the respondent depending upon the explanation. The Respondent maintains that the Disciplinary Authority's conclusions are based on a fair and reasonable assessment of the evidence on record.
16. Responding to the alleged illegality of the "Sting Operation" by a TV Channel, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents reiterated that the Media is recognized as the fourth pillar of our democracy. It plays a critical role in discovering the truth. In the instant case, the sting operation was carried out in the larger interest of society and under the broader fundamental rights of media given under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He further argues that it was a Sting Operation done for the general good of the public. The person carrying it out did not inform them about it as it was sting operation. Further, had it been known that such video recording would be done, the credibility of such a operation would have been diluted. The video depicts action that constitutes a violation of conduct rules.
17. With Regard to Para 13 of Rejoinder: The Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the learned Counsel for the applicant was falsely accusing the Respondent by fabricating a story, wrongly using the name of the supervisor (Krishna Singh Rajput for Krishna I Jadhav, the charged officer.) He strongly refuted these allegations. The Respondents maintains that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and lawfully, with due process afforded to the Applicant.
18. The Order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority was passed keeping in mind the guidelines reg 2nd stage view of CVC issued by Vigilance Division, Head Office vide circular dated 05.08.2020. KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 40 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
19. The Complaint regarding the Charged Official was received by the APFC and the latter's communication vide letter dated 21.05.2018 is taken cognizance in the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority has duly considered all the evidence and documents on record and passed a speaking order.
20. Rejecting the argument of the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the punishment of "Dismissal" was disproportionate, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that Rules 7 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules inserted vide Notification No. HRD/P. IV/2(6)84/CCA/Voll. II dated 04.06.2005 provides that in every case in which the charge of possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, charge of acceptance from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration, for doing or for bearing official act is established, the penalty of "Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment under Central Board" or "Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment under the Central Board" shall be imposed. The Appellate Authority has passed the order well within the framework of Rule 23(2) of the EPF CCA Rules. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty considering the grave nature of charges and after 2nd stage view of Central Vigilance Officer, EPFO in view of the Vigilance Headquarters, New Delhi Circular No.Vig/Coord/DP/Gen/2020/715 dated 05.08.2020. KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 41 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
21. Regarding establishing the authenticity of the video CD, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the legal position and the principle laid down by Hon'ble High courts and Apex court including in the judgment in P.K. Basheer's case, though undisputed, the same principle are not applicable to the present case and are not applicable as the documents referred to were connected with the Disciplinary proceedings and "Strict rules of Evidence" are not applicable in such proceedings.
8. CONCLUSION
1. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc, and judgement of the Higher Courts which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
2. It is well settled that the Courts have very limited powers when it comes to intervention in Disciplinary Proceedings. There have been a catena of Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also various High Courts where it has been reiterated that the Courts should carry out minimal intervention in Departmental Proceedings. Several Judgements have also laid down the principles related to powers of Courts in Disciplinary Proceedings and also the criteria for intervention. The same had been discussed at length in the case of A.R. Naik vs. Ministry of Defence in O.A No. 170/70/2023 dated 30.01.2026 of Bangalore Bench. The relevant portions of this Judgement are extracted as below:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 42 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "9. Powers of Court in disciplinary proceedings have been considered and defined by Supreme Court in various Judgments. In the Case of State of A.P. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 = (1964) 3 SCR 25 = (1964) 2 LLJ 150, many principles related to powers of Court in disciplinary proceedings were discussed and court said in para 7 and 13:-
"7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
13. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which we need not refer to............"
10. In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618, following observations made by the Court:
"Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the high court exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court."
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 43 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
11. Again in the case of State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557 = 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 = 1975 SCC OnLine SC 299 the principles have been further discussed in details in para 21 to 24:-
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 3 SCR 25 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226. ...........
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 44 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
12. In State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298 the Supreme Court succinctly summed up the important principles and said in para 4:-
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiates the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. .............. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. .......".
13. After a detailed review of the law on the subject, the Supreme Court while dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court or Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters and punishment in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177 = 1989 SCC (L&S) 303 = 1989 SCC OnLine SC 125 opined:
"We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of Legislature or Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 45 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter of exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority."
14. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 = 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 the Supreme Court opined:-
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, 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 [(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 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.
14. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 230 : (1993) 25 ATC 844] when the order of transfer was interfered with by the Tribunal, this Court held that the Tribunal was not an appellate authority which could substitute its own judgment to that bona fide order of transfer. The Tribunal could not, in such circumstances, interfere with orders of transfer of a government servant. In Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora [1993 Supp (1) SCC 551 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 281 : (1993) 23 ATC 672] it was held that the Administrative Tribunal was not an appellate authority and it could not substitute the role of authorities to clear the efficiency bar of a public servant. Recently, in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow [(1994) 2 SCC 537 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 687 : (1994) 27 ATC 149 : JT (1994) 1 SC 217] a Bench of this Court of which two of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members, considered the order of the Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on no evidence, went in detail into the question as to whether the Tribunal had power to appreciate the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and held that a tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would, therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon appreciation of KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 46 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE evidence to substitute its own findings of fact to that of a disciplinary/appellate authority."
15. Again in Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. A. Rajapandian, 1995(1) SCC 216, the court opined:
"It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supports the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by re-appreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority."
16. In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 = 1999 SCC (L&S) 405 = 1999 SCC OnLine SC 39 (decided on 20.01.1999), the Supreme Court considered the scope of interference by court in the cases of departmental enquiry and said that High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of Disciplinary Authority in the matter of facts and quantum of punishment. The Court also said that in case of finding of facts in departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts and Appellate Authority can upset the finding, but not the High Court unless the findings of Disciplinary Authority are perverse and against the Law. The High Court does not sit as Appellate Authority over the finding of Disciplinary Authority and impose some other punishment. The adequacy or in adequacy of evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court........................
18. Again in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 = (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 the Supreme Court observed:-
"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 47 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquires. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded on departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144])"
19. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 = (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554 = 2014 SCC OnLine SC 917 = 2015[4] SLR 244 [SC], Supreme Court also mentioned the case of State of A.P. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 in which many principles related to powers of Court in disciplinary proceedings were discussed and also mentioned para 21 to 24 of State of A.P. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 = AIR 1975 SC 2151 and para 4 of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298 related to the principles. Court said in para 12 & 13:-
"12. ............. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:-
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 48 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
..................
22. In Union of India and Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, [2022] 1 SCC 373 = 2022 SCC online 373 = 2022[2] SLR 293 [SC], Court made the following pertinent observations:
"23. The well-ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority".
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 49 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
23. Recently in the case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, (2023) 14 SCC 391 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064 = 2023 INSC 766 = 2023[11] Scale 530 [24.08.2023] the supreme Court said -
"36. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court.''
24. In the case of Aureliano Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and others, AIR 2023 SC 2485 = AIROnline 2023 SC 423 [12.05.2023] the Supreme Court considered the "Scope of interference by the High court in judicial review and observed in para 56 and 57 :-
"56. It may be clarified at the outset that to satisfy itself that no injustice has been meted out to the appellant, the High Court was required to examine the decision-making process and not just the final outcome. In other words, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the factual findings recorded in the departmental proceedings as long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings that cannot be faulted on account of procedural illegalities or irregularities that may have vitiated the process by which the decision was arrived at.
57. The purpose of judicial review is not only to ensure that the individual concerned receives fair treatment, but also to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, a conclusion, which is correct in the eyes of law[(1999) 1 SCC 759] . Notably, in Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra, a matter related to sexual harassment at the workplace [Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 3 ALL ER 141 HL. Also refer : B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 50 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 749] where, aggrieved by the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority of accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer and removing the respondent therein from service on the ground that he had tried to molest a lady employee, this Court had set aside the order of the High Court that had narrowly interpreted the expression "sexual harassment" and held that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts and once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction should not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The Court is under a duty to satisfy itself that an inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment by a Committee is conducted in terms of the service rules and that the concerned employee gets a reasonable opportunity to vindicate his position and establish his innocence[Dr. Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 426] ."
25. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617 = 2023[1] AISLJ 97 [23.11.2022] the court referred the case of B.C. Chaturvedi case (1995)6 SCC 749 and said:-
"15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.
..............................................."
3. In the light of the above Judgements, it would be beneficial to see whether any intervention is required by this Bench as requested by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant. From the detailed averments of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and the Respondents, the reports of the Presenting Officer, the Inquiring Officer and the Orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the following KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 51 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE essential/crucial milestone in the conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings are extracted as below:
(a) Statement of Articles of Charges against the Applicant ARTICLE-I That Shri Krishna I Jadhav, Sr. SSA, while he was working as Sr. SSA in Pension Section, Regional Office, Hubli during the period 2018-19 had committed grave misconduct in as much as he demanded Rs.4,000/ from Shri Mahesh P Hosur bearing EPF Account Number GBHBL00405200000000421 [UAN Number 100923519043] for settlement of his EPF and EPS Accounts and accepted Rs.2, 000/-as illegal gratification.
By the aforesaid wilful and deliberate acts of omission and commission Shri Krishna I Jadhav, Sr. SSA, displayed lack of devotion to duty, integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Board of Trustees, employees PF Organisation in violation of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Ruies 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the Employees of EPFO by virtue of Regulations 27 EPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1962 and Rule 18and 22 of EPF (Officers and Employees Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008 ARTICLE-II That Shri Krishna I Jadhav, Sr. SSA, while he was working as Sr. SSA in Pension Section at Regional Office, Hubli has involved in the matter which does not pertain either to his Section or to his Seat and entertained the composite claim of Shri Mahesh P Hosur, EPF Account Number GBHBL00405200000000421 [UAN Number 100923519043] for settlement of EPF and EPS Accounts with ulterior motive. By the aforesaid wilful and deliberate acts and omission and commission Shri Krishna I Jadhav, Sr. SSA, has displayed lack of devotion to duty, integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Board of Trustees Employees' Provident Fund in violation of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of EPFO by virtue of Regulations 27 EPF (Staff Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1962 and Rule 18 and 22 of EPF (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 52 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE ARTICLE-III That Shri Krishna I Jadhav, Sr. SSA, while he was working as Sr. SSA in Pension Section, during the period 2018-19 at Regional Office, Hubli has suppressed the fact of acceptance of bribe of Rs.2,000/- before his Superiors and gave false statement to Shri K Chakrapani, APFC (HRM) on 14.02.2019.
Thus, Shri Krishna I Jadhav, Sr.SSA, has failed to maintain absolute integrity devotion to the duty and high ethical standard, has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of EPFO and his act being contrary to the prevention of corruption laws, rules regulations and established practices and thereby he violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(vi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, which are applicable mutatis- mutandis to the employees of Central Board of Trustee, EPF/EPFO in terms of Regulations 18 and 22 of EPF (Officers and Employees Conditions of Services) Regulations, 2008 as amended from time to time. ............."
(b) The report of the Presenting Officer submitted vide No. KN/HBL/EO/PO/2022- 23 dated 29.07.2022 is summarised as follows:
1. The Articles of Charge were clearly explained to the Charged Officer.
2. The list of Prosecution Witnesses and Prosecution documents were furnished to the Charged Officer.
3. The request of the Charged Officer to have a Defence Assistant was accepted and the Charged Officer's Statement of Defence was also taken on record.
4. The Charged Officer was asked to submit a list of defence witnesses and he declared that he had no defence witnesses to defend his case.
5. During the course of Disciplinary Proceedings, the statement of complainant (PW-1) was recorded in the presence of the Charged Officer and his defence assistant and his cross examination was also taken on record.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 53 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
6. The Statements of PW-3 and PW-4 who had carried out the video recording, indicating acceptance of bribe by the Charged Officer were also recorded in the presence of the Charged Officer and his defence assistant and their cross examination was also taken on record.
7. The statements of PW-2 (the Editor of Fact TV) could not be recorded despite repeated and sincere efforts of the Inquiring Authority as he was in very poor health. Likewise, PW-5 could not be traced and hence her statements could not be recorded and so her name was dropped from the list of Disciplinary Proceedings.
From the above, it appears that Principles of Natural Justice were followed by the Inquiring Officer during the conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings. It is seen that most of the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant which he had so vehemently and repeatedly argued over several days in the court, have been adequately addressed by the Presenting Officer in his Brief to the Enquiring Authority, barring one matter which is discussed at length later.
4. The contention of the Counsel for the Applicant that the statement of certain PWs could not be recorded, thereby depriving the Charged Officer the opportunity to cross examination is not tenable. The Inquiring Officer made all sincere efforts to secure their presence but in vain. There have been several judgments which indicate that it is prerogative of the Inquiring Authority to decide which Prosecution Witnesses to examine and which ones to be given up. It is not essential that all the PWs which were cited should be examined. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portions of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 54 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dalbir Singh, in Civil Appeal No. 5848/2021, AIR (2021) SC 4504. The relevant paras are as follows:
"20. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh was dealing with the issue of non-examination of passengers when the allegation against the conductor was non-issuance of the tickets. This Court held that in a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and that all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. This Court held as under:
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 55 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record........"
5. It is also seen that copy of the Inquiry Report was duly provided by the Disciplinary Authority to the Charged Officer and adequate time was provided to him to furnish his reply. Based on the reply of the Charged Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had passed Orders of Punishment after detailed and due consideration. Likewise, the Appellate Authority passed the Orders on the Review Petition of the Charged Officer after due consideration. The issue of disproportionate punishment, raised by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant has also been adequately examined by the Disciplinary Authority. He has clearly stated that the Punishment of Dismissal was strictly as per Rule 7 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 inserted vide Notification No. HRD/P.IV/2(6)84/CCA/Vol.II dated 04.06.2005.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has repeatedly drawn our attention regarding the reliance placed by the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority on the video CD indicating acceptance of bribe by the applicant. In this regard, it would be useful to revisit the Judgements cited by the Learned Counsel for the applicant which are as follows:
(a) Judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of M.R. Hiremath Vs. The State on 27.04.2017 in Criminal Petition No. 3202 of 2017. The relevant portion is as follows:
"........................
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 56 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The complainant having approached the Lokayuktha Police in the above background, after registration of an FIR in this regard, elaborate preparations are said to have been made by the Lokayuktha Police to initially arm the complainant with an electronic device to secretly record the incidence of the petitioner expressly making a demand for the illegal gratification. This is said to have been successfully achieved by means of video recording of a meeting of the complainant with the petitioner with the aid of accused no.2, by means of a miniature recording device called a 'spy camera' supplied by the Lokayuktha police to the complainant, in the official chamber of the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have made a demand for a sum of Rs.20 lakh.
.....................
After having heard the rival contentions, at length, it is sufficient to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, 2015 (1) SCC Crl. 24, to answer the point of law. It is laid down as follows: "Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, and information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 57 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
a) There must be a certificate which identified the electronic record containing the statement;
b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device..............."
7. It cannot be denied that the Inquiry Authority in his Report and likewise, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in their respective Orders have drawn their conclusions / inferences, placing reliance on the video CD. The relevant extracts are as follows:
(a) Enquiry Report.
"AS THE VIDEO EVIDENCE ALONGWITH THE STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE COMPELLING ENOUGH, THEREFORE I CONCUR WITH THE VIEW KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 58 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE OF THE PO, THT THE CO HAD INDEED COMMITTED GRAVE MISCONDUCT OF ACCEPTING THE ILLEGAL GRATIFICAITON FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF THE SAID PF SUBSCRIBER".
(b) Penalty Order of Disciplinary Authority Likewise, the Disciplinary Authority in his Penalty Order vide KN/GLB/RO/KIJ/VIG/2022-23/34 dated 30.12.2022 has observed as follows:
"ORDER Sub: Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 against Shri Krishna I. Jadhav, Sr. SSA, EPFO, Regional Office, Kalaburagi- Disposal of the proceedings-reg ..............................
And whereas the IO has submitted his findings vide his Inquiry Report which was received through Zonal Office, Hubballi vide their letter No. KN/HBL/ZO/2022-23/1/44504/2022(File No.0240) dated 19.09.2022. The IO vide his report submitted that the Video evidence along with the statements and evidence submitted by the Prosecution witnesses are compelling enough that the CO had indeed committed grave misconduct of accepting the illegal gratification for settlement of the claim of the said PF subscriber. And he concluded his findings as:
"I therefore have no hesitation to state that the charges made out in Article-1, Article-ll and Article-III against the CO are clearly established and the charges have hence proved."
(c) It is further seen that in his Appeal representation to the Appellate Authority, the Charged Officer has repeatedly highlighted the fact that the video CD was not produced during the Disciplinary Proceedings and its authenticity was also not established. The relevant portions of his representation to the Appellate Authority dated 23.01.2023 are as follows:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 59 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "............................
6. .......Most interestingly, the so called CD alleged to have been containing the video footage was also not produced by any of the prosecution witnesses and the same was not provided or furnished to the Appellant herein throughout the proceedings. At least the proceedings do not record any such thing of handing over the CD to the Appellant or even playing the CD to any of its witnesses or the officers of the Organization.
7. The Appellant submits that all along including the statement of defense in terms of Rules, were primarily to the effect that the charges are solely based on the alleged Video Footage which has been given greater credibility. As it was also not brought on record that if the CD is taken on record then Who, Where and How, the same was tested or examined in any forensic science lab so as to find out the authenticity or genuineness of the footage by the Disciplinary Authority.
........................
12.That the Appellant submitted his reply on 08.12.2022 and highlighted the Disciplinary Authority, that no inquiry much less the one for imposition of major penalty could be imposed, unless and until the so called CD is produced during the enquiry, let alone the authenticity of the CD is established in a manner known to the law.
.........................
29.The other relevant aspects of not providing or furnishing the disputed CD though sought by the Appellant, in the guise of privileged documents violating the rules of natural justice is also not properly explained by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority."
(d) Orders of the Appellate Authority Despite the fact that the Charged Officer has repeatedly highlighted the issue of non-production of CD during the Disciplinary Proceedings, the Appellate Authority in its disposal of the appeal of the Charged Officer has also not taken adequate cognizance of this matter. The Appellant Authority in its Order vide KN/HBL/ZO/KIJ Appeal/2023-24/150 dated 26.05.2023, has stated as follows:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 60 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE ".......................
I have carefully gone through the Charge Memorandum, Order of Disciplinary Authority, and Comments on the case received from Disciplinary Authority and the grounds produced for appeal made by the charged Official, Shri Krishna I Jadhav, SSSA (Dismissed). The Article-1 of Charge Memorandum dated 26.07.2021, was that Shri Krishna 1 Jhadav, SSSA has demanded Rs. 4,000/- and accepted Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification from Mahesh P Hosur for settlement of his EPF & EPS account. On verification of records it has been noticed that the appellant himself in his statement dated 11.04.2019 given to AD(Vig) admitted that he has accepted illegal gratification and further the RPFC- I, EPFO, RO, Hubballi after watching the video vide her letter No. KN/GLB/HBL/ADM/VIG/2018-19/4 5 dated 22.05.2018 confirmed that the Official is receiving some currency. That Charged Official and his Defence Assistant nave all the rights to demand for documentary evidences such as the CD which contains the video of accepting the illegal gratification, however, he has not raised any objection when the opportunity given to present his version and come up with new submission after concluding the inquiry and holds no merit. Further, it is noticed that, during the hearing the charged Official had not produced any defence witnesses or any documentary evidences or strongly counter the charges framed against him.
The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer by following the principle of natural justice giving due opporturity to the charged official to prove his innocence. The Charges were framed by the Vigilance Headquarters and charge sheet was issued to the charged official as per the Vigilance letter dated 19.07.2021. The charges framed are found proper beyond doubts. The Disciplinary Authority has concluded his finding as charges are proved after verification of the video which shows the illegal gratification by the charged official. ................................"
8. During the course of the arguments in the Court, the video CD was secured by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents and also played in front of the Bench. The video definitely indicates acceptance of certain amount of money by the Charged Officer. However, the video definitely lacks in clarity in terms of both audio and KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 61 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE video quality and cannot be fully relied upon without proper authentication. It is also seen that in the case of Rajat Prasad Vs. C.B.I in Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 2010 dated 24.04.2014., the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept the contentions of the applicants regarding legality of a Sting Operation on various grounds. The relevant portions of this Judgement are extracted as below:
".......................
10. The expression 'sting operation' seems to have emerged from the title of a popular movie called "The Sting" which was screened sometime in the year 1973. The movie was based on a somewhat complicated plot hatched by two persons to trick a third person into committing a crime. Being essentially a deceptive operation, though designed to nab a criminal, a sting operation raises certain moral and ethical questions. The victim, who is otherwise innocent, is lured into committing a crime on the assurance of absolute secrecy and confidentiality of the circumstances raising the potential question as to how such a victim can be held responsible for the crime which he would not have committed but for the enticement. Another issue that arises from such an operation is the fact that the means deployed to establish the commission of the crime itself involves a culpable act.
11. Unlike the U.S. and certain other countries where a sting operation is recognized as a legal method of law enforcement, though in a limited manner as will be noticed hereinafter, the same is not the position in India which makes the issues arising in the present case somewhat unique. A sting operation carried out in public interest has had the approval of this Court in R.K. Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 though it will be difficult to understand the ratio in the said case as an approval of such a method as an acceptable principle of law enforcement valid in all cases. Even in countries like the United States of America where sting operations are used by law enforcement agencies to apprehend suspected offenders involved in different offences like drug trafficking, political and judicial corruption, prostitution, property theft, traffic violations etc., the criminal jurisprudence differentiates between "the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal"
(per Chief Justice Warren in Sherman vs. United States) approving situations where government agents "merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense" and censuring situations where the crime is the "product of the creative activity" of law- KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 62 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE enforcement officials (Sorrell vs. United States). In the latter type of cases the defence of entrapment is recognized as a valid defence in the USA. If properly founded such a defence could defeat the prosecution. .........................
13. ................However, a shift in judicial reaction appears to be emerging which is clearly discernable in R v. Loosely ([2001]UKHL 53) wherein the House of Lords found that:-
"A prosecution founded on entrapment would be an abuse of the court's process. The court will not permit the prosecutorial arm of the state to behave in this way (para16) "Entrapment is not a matter going only to the blameworthiness or culpability of the defendant and, hence, to sentence as distinct from conviction, Entrapment goes to the propriety of there being a prosecution at all for the relevant offence, having regard to the state's involvement in the circumstance in which it was committed." (para 17)
14. Thus, sting operations conducted by the law enforcement agencies themselves in the above jurisdictions have not been recognized as absolute principles of crime themselves in detection and proof of criminal acts. Such operations by the enforcement agencies are yet to be experimented and tested in India and legal acceptance thereof by our legal system is yet to be answered..........."
9. It would be also useful to refer to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corpn Vs. Santosh Kumar [2006 (11) SCC 147] dated 23 May, 2006. The relevant extracts are as under:
"Several other grounds had also been taken on merits of the claim by the writ petitioner (respondent herein). The Writ Petition was contested by the Corporation by filing its counter in the affidavit. It was also specifically stated in the counter-affidavit about the punishment awarded to the respondent for theft and fraud etc. and the imposition of punishment of "dismissal" from the service. Before the High Court, a solitary contention was raised on behalf of respondent stating that despite a detailed response preferred by the respondent herein, the Appellate Authority passed the KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 63 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE order dated 15.5.2000 without considering any of the issues raised by the respondent herein as petitioner in the wait petition. The learned Judges of the High Court had also perused the records placed before them by the Corporation. It is seen from the impugned order passed by the High Court that the Judges were satisfied that no reasons whatever had been recorded in either not accepting the issues raised by the respondent in response to the show cause notice nor had the claim of the respondent made in various grounds raised by him in his appeal been considered. The learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that the orders of punishment dated 30.12.1999 as well as the order dated 15.5.2000 by which the respondent's appeal had been rejected are cryptic and non-speaking orders and, therefore, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are liable to be set-uside on the ground of non-application of mind. The High Court also held that the action taken by the authorities is arbitrary. However, the learned Judges, while setting- aside the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order, issued a direction to the appellant- Corporation to reinstate into service with continuity in service with all consequential benefits. Liberty was also reserved to the appellant to re- initiate the enquiry from the stage of consideration by the Punishing Authority and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the Corporation has come up in appeal before us. .............................
We have also perused the order passed by the General Manager (Operations) which is available at page 51 and the order passed by the Director (Marketing) who is the appellate authority. A close scrutiny of both the orders would only go to show that the Appellate Authority has simply adopted the language employed by the Disciplinary Authority and inflicted the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. ............................
A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, have no other option except to set-aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the detailed representation made by the respondent and also consider the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer and the records placed before him in its proper perspective and decide the matter afresh on merit. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the entire case only on the basis of records already on record. The respondent is not permitted to place any further material or record before the Disciplinary Authority. The KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 64 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE order passed by the High Court is set-aside for the above reason. We also set-aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The Disciplinary Authority is also directed to dispose of the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
10. It is abundantly clear that the Inquiring Authority and subsequently the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authority have placed considerable reliance on the video CD in arriving at their conclusions and also in imposition of punishment. However, the video CD was not at all produced during the course of the Disciplinary Proceedings. Its authenticity is also not fully established in terms of the Judgement of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer case.
11. On one hand, the respondents have brushed aside the repeated contentions of the Charged Officer that the video CD indicating acceptance of bribe was neither produced nor examined during the course of Disciplinary Proceedings, stating that the Charged Officer never insisted upon the same; on the other hand, in their Report/ Proceedings / Orders , the Enquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority and even the Appellate Authority have cited the video CD , as one important piece of evidence on which they have based their conclusion of culpability of the Charged Officer. This does not seem to be in consonance with the Principles of Natural Justice.
12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is felt that there is definite requirement for partial reconduct of the Disciplinary Proceedings. To that extent it can be said that the OA is partly upheld. It is hereby ordered:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.05.08 L RANI12:57:15 +05'30' 65 OA No.170/00347/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
1. The Inquiring Authority will further reconduct the Disciplinary Proceedings to the limited and specific extent of production of the video CD after due authentication, duly following the procedure, including Examination in Chief and Cross Examination. The evidence recorded earlier shall be taken into consideration as it is by the Inquiry Officer.
2. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the revised Inquiry Report and subsequent representation of the Charged Officer will decide the matter afresh on merit and give a detailed Speaking Order duly addressing every issue raised by the Charged Officer in his future representation, if any.
3. Similar procedure should be adopted by the Appellate Authority also if the Charged Officer chooses to file an appeal representation.
4. The Inquiry Officer will complete the aforesaid proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of Certified copy of this Order.
5. The above direction will not in any way modify the existing order of punishment that is Dismissal of Service of the Charged Officer.
6. All MAs, if any, stand disposed off.
7. No Costs! Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
kr
KOMAL RANI
KOMA CAT Bangalore
2026.05.08
L RANI12:57:15
+05'30'