Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Ravikumar vs D/O Post on 15 September, 2022
~ 1 of 23 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH th 0A310/00644/2015 DATED THIS THE '5 pay OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SHRI. T. JACOB, MEMBER (A) THE HON'BLE SMT LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J) K. Ravikumar, S/o C.Kathirvel, 2/122,Sengamedu village, Selvapuram post, Kangalancherry- 610201. ... Applicant. ( Advocate: M/s R. 'Malaichamy) Versus Union of India Rep. by The Postmaster General, - Department of Posts, Central Region (TN) Tiruchirapalli-620001. The Director of Postal Services, Central Region (TN), Tiruchirapalli-620001. The Superintendent of Posts, Nagapattinam Division, Nagapattinam 611001. ... Respondents. (By Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, Sr.PC) ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. T. Jacob, Member (A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant under Sec.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. To call for the records of the 3 Respondent pertaining to his charge memo made in Memo No.F1/4- 01/11-12 dated 22.03.2012 and his order made in Memo No.F1/4-01/11-12 dated 17.04.2014, the order of the 274 Respondent made in Memo No. STC/3015/2014 dated 01.09.2014 confirming order of the 3 Respondent and order of the 1 Respondent made in Memo No. STC/4- 16/2014 dated 13.11.2014 and set aside the same; consequent to
2. direct the respondents to conduct de-nova inquiry and further direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all attendant benefits; and,
3. To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:-
While the applicant was working as GDSBPM, Selvapuram B.O, he was issued with a charge memo dated 22.03.2012 by the third respondent under Rule-10 GDS (C & E) Rules, 2011 alleging that he has misappropriated the funds of the depositor, Smt. Thaiyalnayagi. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in total violation of GDS Rules, A dictated statement was obtained from the applicant by coercion. Based on such report the applicant was removed from "@
3 of 23 engagement by an order dated 17.04.2014. The appeal and petition preferred by the applicant also rejected by the 2"! & 1* Respondents. Hence, the OA.
23. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, irter alia, on the following grounds:-
a) The revision petition of the applicant has been disposed of by the incumbent of additional charge, while the regular incumbent was on short leave.
Hence, it is a violation of Rule 48 of PO: Manual Volume III, which reads as follows:-
"48. An officer appointed to perform the current duties of an appointment can exercises administrative or financial powers vested in the full-fledge incumbent of the post but he cannot exercise statutory powers, whether those powers are derived direct from an Act of Parliament or Rules, Regulations and By Laws made under various articles of the Constitution."
b) There were no speaking orders of the 1 Respondent on the points raised by the applicant in his revision petition. But, recorded general comments over the work and conduct of the applicant.
c) The Officer who passed the order dated 13.11.2014 is not the Postmaster General, for Central Region (T.N), Tiruchirappalli. The said officer is the Postmaster General for Southern Region (T.N), Madurai. This fact has been suppressed by the said officer.
d) That the 3" Respondent has already determined to punish the applicant while issuing the charge memo itself. In Annexure II/Article I of charge memo there is a mention of past record of service of the applicant, as showr. below, which is not at all a charge against the applicant. Hence, it is evident that the 3r4 Respondent already decided to punish the applicant".
"The said Shri K.Ravikumar came up for adverse notices earlier. Based on the assurance of the said Shri K.Ravikumar that he would not come up for such adverse notices again the case were viewed leniently and he was awarded punishment of 'Censured' vide memo No STC/3- 24/TR dated 07.03.2003 of Director of Postal Services O/o the Postmaster-General, Central Region, Tiruchirappalli 620001 and in another case he was awarded punishment of debarring for appearing from any recruitment examinations for a period of 3 years vide memo No F1/4-03/05-06 dated 27.06.2008 of Superintendent of Posts offices, Nagappattinam Division, Nagappattinam".
Hence, It is a violation of Rule 4[1] of Postal Manual Volume III, which specify as follows "4(i) The grounds on which it is proposed to take action against an employee should be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges. The charges should be clear, specific and precise. A separate charge should be framed in respect of each separate offence. It is desirable that the charges should not be of a petty nature or unnecessarily numerous. They should not, except where the charge is one of inefficiency or incompetence, relate to matters which have already been the subject of previous official enquiry and decision. Care should be taken that no expression of 5 of 23 opinion as to the guilt of the accused official is contained in the wording of the charge".
e) Out of 6 additional documents requisitioned by the applicant during the course of inquiry vide his letter dated 27.9.2012, only 2 documents were supplied and other 4 documents were not supplied. Those documents were admitted by the I.O as relevant to the charge. It was stated that those documents were not available with the custodian and hence not supplied. The Applicant is in no way responsible for the non availability of documents. Therefore, denial of additional documents on the ground that they were misplaced or not available with him is nothing but it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
f) The wordings of Article I of charge memo itself is in violation of Rule 4[1] of chapter I of Postal manual Volume-III. Accordingly, no expression of opinion as to the guilt of accused is contained in the wording or charge memo. Contrarily, definite opinion has been formed in the wordings of Article of charge such as ... accepted a sum of Rs...; allowed withdrawal for Rs......etc. On this count also, the charge memo become vitiates.
(g) The penalty awarded is disproportionate and excessive to bear the Applicant at this middle age of 41 years. His ouster from the department affects his livelihood and his innocent family members were thrown to the street.
4. The applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 255 of 1973 in the case of Keshri Mal Versus State of Rajasthan.
5. Respondents have filed detailed reply statement. It is submitted that the applicant was formerly a BPM at Selvapuram BO under Kangalancheri $.O in Nagapattinam Postal Division. It is found that the applicant had committed financial irregularities and hence he was issued with a charge sheet which was proved during the enquiry. During enquiry, every reasonable opportunity was given to him and he had engaged a Defense Assistant to assistant him during the enquiry and was permitted to cross examination of the witnesses. Had he been innocent, he would have disproved the charge. The charge was adequately proved during enquiry. The applicant did not submit the defense brief despite reasonable opportunity was given to him. Hence the averment of the applicant that the 3 respondent has well set in his mind about the guilt of the applicant, while issuing charge memo itself and accordingly excessive penalty was awarded to him is not correct. The penalty was given by the 3™ respondent taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, evidences adduced during the enquiry and his past record of service.
6. The applicant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority viz Director of Postal Services, the 2™ respondent on 26.5.2014 His appeal was rejected by a speaking order of the 2 respondent dt 1.9.2014. He preferred a Revision Petition dated 19.09.2014 to the 1% respondent which was rejected vide memo No.STC/4-16/2014 dated 13.11.2014. Now, he preferred this O.A.
7. It is submitted that the 1% respondent, while disposing the revision petition preferred by the applicant, had discussed about the irregularities committed by the applicant and the consequences and did not make any 7 of 23 sarcastic comments over the work and conduct of the applicant as stated by him. The applicant was alleged to have committed financial irregularities which are proved in the enquiry. Besides, the applicant has dealt with the public money and committing fraud on public money is a crime. Further the petition was disposed with a speaking order.of the 1' respondent.
8. It is submitted that the 2" respondent while disposing the appeal preferred by the applicant carefully analyzed every point raised in his appeal and disposed the same. Similarly, the 15 respondent while disposing the revision petition has discussed every point. The appeal and petition were disposed by the 2™4 and 1 respondent respectively after due consideration of the case, severity of the charge and nature of charge. All the aspects in the case were discussed thoroughly including the past record of the official. Hence, the averment of the applicant that the appeal and petition were disposed mechanically is far from truth.
9. It is submitted that the applicant did not utilize every opportunity given to him. During the enquiry, every reasonable opportunity was given to him and he had engaged defense assistant to assist him during the enquiry and was permitted to cross examine the witnesses. Had he been innocent, he would have disproved the charge. The charge was adequately proved during the enquiry. The applicant did not submit the defense brief despite reasonable opportunity was given to him. Since, the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner, the request of the applicant to conduct a fresh enquiry should not be considered.
10. It is submitted that it is true that the revision petition was disposed by the PMG SR who was holding additional charge of PMG CR. The regular incumbent PMG CR was on leave then and hence the PMG SR holding additional charge, has disposed the same through a speaking order. PMG CR is of equal rank and provided with full statutory powers.
11. It is submitted the 3" respondent in the Annexure II of the charge memo had discussed about the previous punishment awarded to the applicant for the integularities committed by him. These are proved instances and he was viewed leniently and on his assurance that he would not come up with such adverse notices in future. This was not disputed by him during the enquiry and these were proved during the enquiry also. As per instructions contained in Govt of India MHA OM no.134/20/68-AVD dated 28.8.1968 as note 2 of Govt of India's decision below Rule 15 of CCA(CCA) Rules 1965, his past record of services have been referred in the charge sheet and introduced through a witness SW-3, who has confirmed/explained the circumstance. Hence, it is not the violation of any rules as stated by him. Also, the averment of the applicant that the 34 respondent has already decided to punish the applicant is not correct. The charge sheet against him was issued on 22.3.12 by one officer who was heading the division. The enquiry was conducted for more than a year and at the time of finalization another incumbent was the disciplinary authority. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case deposition of witnesses and the evidences adduced during the enquiry the disciplinary authority at the time of finalization of the case impose the penalty commensurate to the gravity of the charge 9 of 23 against the applicant. It is submitted that the charge sheet was issued by one officer and finalized by another officer and nothing was predetermined, while issuing the charge sheet as averred by the applicant.
12. It was stated that the additional documents requested by the applicant during the course of the enquiry were i. SB-3 card in respect of SB account no.494741 standing open at Selvapuram BO, ii. Counter-foils of SB pay in slips of alleged deposits for 8 days. iii. SB withdrawal form of SB account no.494741 of Rs40 on Oct 2010 iv. IRonSelvapuram BO for 2010 & 2011.
vy. Ledger copy of SB A/C No.49474 lafter 01.04.2011.
vi. Copy of list of PBs which were not received for EOI from Selvapuram BO for the year 2010 &2011.
Among them serial no.i,ii,iii and vi were not supplied.
SB-3 card is not required. Without having SB-3 card, there is no possibility of having SB pass book.
SB pay in slip counter foils are non existing documents. As the depositor is illiterate, the applicant is supposed to fill up the pay in slips. Further the deposits were not brought into account.
Withdrawal form is not available as the applicant had given withdrawal from his own pocket to hide the irregularities committed by him.
Copy of list of PBs which was not received for EOI from Selvapuram BO for the year 2010 and 2011 was not sent by the concerned authority to the appropriate authority. Hence, it is not available and not supplied.
The applicant had defrauded the deposits credited by the depositor and had given withdrawal to hide the irregularity of non credit. It is evident from the pass book and the depositor clearly proved the same. Hence, the non supply of additional documents as required by him will in no way vitiate the charge against him.
13. It is a well settled proposition of law that if the Department had lost confidence on its employees, courts are not expected to interfere with the punishment imposed. In Kannaiyalal Agrawal and others Vs Factory Manager Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd (2001)9 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bonafide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence(ii) by abusing such position he commits act which results in forfeiting the same and iii) to continue him in service establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or
- would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss o7 confidence can not be subjective based upon the mind of management objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved. The Hon'ble High Court Chennai had taken the same view in WA 186lof 2009 judgement dated 21.6.2010 against the orders made in 11 of 23 WP 5387 of 2001 dated 27.8.2009. The respondents pray for dismissal of the OA.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleading and documents on record.
15, The applicant was proceeded against for the misconduct in departmental procesding. The applicant was served with a charge sheet. The applicant faced departmental proceedings on following charge.
"Article I:
That the. said Shri K.Ravikumar, GDSBPM, Selvapuram BO a/w Kangalancheri SO. accepted a sum of Rs.1350/- on 23.02.10, Rs.1800/- on 11.03.10, Rs.1100/- on 30.03.10, Rs,400/- on 20.05.10, Rs.200/- during July '10 Rs.1500/- on NS 01.11.10,-Rs.1200/- on 02.11.10, and Rs.800/- on 04.11.10 from Smt Thaiyalnayagi, the depositor of SB account No.494741 of Selvapuram BO towards deposits and allowed withdrawal for Rs.400/- during October 2010, but failed to bring the transactions into BO N accounts on the respective dates and did not bring the said deposits into Government account.
Thus the said Shri K.Ravikumar violated the provisions of Rules 131(2)(3), 134 and 174(2) of Book of BO Rules 6th edition (2nd reprint) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him vide Rule 21 of Department of Posts, GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Ruies, 201 L.
16. Astatement of imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour on which the Articles of charge were based, together a list of Documents by which, and a List of Witnesses by whom, the charges were proposed to be sustained, were also forwarded to him along with the above said Memorandum dated 22.03.2012.
17. The applicant denied the charge against him and an enquiry in the manner prescribed by the rule was conducted every reasonable opportunities to him and on the completion of the enquiry the applicant was removed from engagement vide memo of the 3 respondent dated 17.4.2014.
18. The applicant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority viz Director of Postal Services, the 2* respondent on 26.5.2014. His appeal was rejected by a speaking order of the 2nd respondent dt 1.9.2014. He preferred a Revision Petition dated 19.09.2014 to the 1% respondent which was rejected vide memo no. STC/4-16/2014 dated 13.11.2014.
19. Aggrieved against the order of punishment, the applicant invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
20. The Inquiry Officer held the charge as proved. The Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the evidence led before the IO. Consistency in evidence both documentary and oral evidences coupled with the fact that there does not appear any variation from the rules with regard to conducting of the inquiry support fully the case of the respondents. Thus, there is absolutely no irregularity or legal flaws in the decision making process.
13 of 23
21. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process. The power of judicial review conferred on the Constitutional Court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority. The following decisions are apposite to take into account while deciding the issue in this case:-
(a) In State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that the High Court is not 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. The Court held as under:
"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...."
(b) In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., again, a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence, Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proeeeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
15 of 23
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate 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 781], this Court held at page 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."
(c) In High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr., the Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as under:
"16. The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
(d) In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, this Court held 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 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 ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. The Court held as under:
"7, Tt 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 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 enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in 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. 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 vs. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana - 1999 (5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant $ Patil - 2001 (1) SCC416).
7 of 23 XX XX XX
(e) In Union of India vs Dalbir Singh (2021) 11 SCC 321, the Apex Court has held as under:-
A. three-Judge, Bench of this Court in State of Haryana 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 : (SCC p. 493, 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 textbooks, 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 common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed 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."
(f) | The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran had laid down the broad parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review. The Court held as under:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under 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;
19 of 23
(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;
Vil. go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4136 JT 2007 (8) SC 588 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs Punjab National bank and another) in para 20 has held thus"........ once the employer has lost confidence in the employee and the bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to immune from challenge for the confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement can not be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity' (Vide AIR 1972 Corporation, Bombay Vs V.A.Ravellow AIR 1972 SC 1343,The Binny Ltd Vs Their Workman AIR 1973 SC 1403, Kamal Kishore lakshman Vs Management of M/s Pan American World Airways Inc. or others, AIR 1987 SC229, Francis Kalein and Co Pvt Ltd Vs Their Workman AIR 1971 SC 2414, Regional Manager Rajasthan SRTC Vs Sohanlal (2004)8SCC 218 and Bharat heavy Electricals Ltd Vs M. Chandrasheker Reddy and others 2005 AIR SCW 1232.
23. Examining the case under the lens of the above decisions, it would be seen that in this case the applicant participated in the enquiry without any protest. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding that the applicant is guilty of misconduct can be interfered with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. It is not the case of the applicant that there was any violation of any rule or regulation or violations of the principle of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the applicant is guilty of misconduct. Though certain grounds alleging non following of the principles of natural justice and that the IO rendered his finding without any man and material, the applicant could not disprove the allegations and the grounds raised 21 of 23 were only customary and conventional without any basis as could be discerned from the detailed inquiry report of the inquiry officer.
24, The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. The 2nd Respondent while disposing of the appeal, has carefully considered all the points and passed speaking order. The Appeal and Petition preferred by the applicant also rejected by the 2 & 1s Respondents. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the Courts are the Appellate Authority. The applicant had defrauded the deposits credited by the depositors who paid and contributed their hard earned money into deposits and had given withdrawal to hide the irregularity of non credit. It is a well settled proposition of law that if the Department had lost confidence on its employees, courts are not expected to interfere with the punishment imposed. The penalty of removal from engagement is very much commensurate with the grave charges framed against the applicant.
25. The revision petition preferred by the applicant was disposed by the PMG,SR holding additional charges of PMG, CR. The officers is of equal rank and provide with full 'statutory powers and not appointed to perform current duties as stated by the applicant and hence it is not in violation of Rule 48 of P.O Vol.lll and hence the order of revision petition is not to be set aside.
26. We have exhaustively discussed the Apex Court directives in regard to Courts interfering with the final decisions in departmental disciplinary cases. The applicant has stated that he was given only 2 additional documents against 6 demanded by him. Irrespective of whether they were available or not, it is seen that they were not vital for proving the charges levelled against him. The IO concluded that the charges were proved on the basis of the existing list of documents and corroborated by the statements made by the witnesses. The applicant and his defence assistant were given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The statements in the chargesheet brought out that his conduct during past service, before the present case, in the Department were also not satisfactory. This statement may not be taken to say that the Department had prejudged the punishment to be awarded against the present chargesheet. The applicant has not alleged any iota of bias or denial of principles of natural justice on the part of the IO during the inquiry proceedings. Three separate statutory authorities, namely Disc, Authority(who was other than the one who issued the chargesheet), Appellate Authority and finally the Revision Authority at very high level of PMG have examined the entire case and agreed with the punishment imposed on the applicant after appreciating the case file.
27. The judgment relied upon by the applicant is inapplicable as it was rendered in different facts and circumstances of the case than the one available in the present case.
28. In the conspectus of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the judgements of the Hon"ble Apex Court and High Court, we do not see any as 23 of 23 _ justification to allow the OA in favour of the applicant. Resultantly, the OA is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly ordered. No costs.
_
8)