Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Biswajit Dey vs D/O India Post on 28 February, 2024
1 , O.A. 422 of 2018 © | CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA | Date of Hearing : 15.01.2024 0.A. 350/422/2018 | Date of Order: 9¢_ 02.20Ly Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member Sri Biswajit Dey, Son of Sri Haradhan Dey, aged about 46 years, had worked as Postal Assistant, Cossipore Head Office, Kolkata - 700002; residing at 29, Vivekananda Ist Bye Lane, Kolkata - 700065. seaaees Applicant. -versus- 1. Union of India service through the Secretary, Ministry of ~ Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001, - 2. The Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, Yogayog 'Bhawan, C. R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700012. 3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, North Kolkata Division, Kolkata 700037. sees Respondenis. For the Applicant : Mr. K. Sarkar, Counsel Ms. A. Sarkar, Counsel For the Respondents _: Mr. T.K. Chatterjee, Counsel ORDER
Per Mr. Anindo:Majumdar, Administrative Member :
1. _ The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs):
"a) to issue direction upon the respondents to cancel, quash and set aside the impugned order of suspension dated 25.05.2011, Chargesheet dated 17.05.2013, Dee 4
2 oe . O.A. 422 of 2018 Enquiry Report dated 18.09.2017, Order of Punishment dated 11.12.2017 and Appellate order dated 01.03.2018 forthwith;
. Q) to issue further direction upon the respondents and their men and agents to reinstate the applicant in his service along with all arrears of salary and other consequential benefits and to pay him the recovered amount which has been taken jrom the applicant forthwith;
_ ¢) to issue further direction upon the respondents for producing the entire connected departmental records regarding the disciplinary proceedings Initiated against Sri Rabindra Nath Das-IT;
d) Any other Order or Orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper;"
2. _ The facts of the case are summarised as below:
a) ~ The applicant, Shri Biswajit Dey, was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Office Memorandum No. F4-1/04 / 2011/ North / B Dey dated 17.05.2013 for six articles of charges which are as follows :
"ARTICLE-I Sri Biswajit Dey, PA Shyambazar DSC (under suspension), while working as PA, Dum Dum MDG on 26-11-2009 prematurely closed one MIS A/c bearing no 45976 opened on -- ' 11-08-2008 for Rs. 49,500.00 (Rupees Forty nine thousand five hundred) only, in the name the warrant of payment duly passed by the ASPM for *48.510.00 (Rupees Forty eight thousand five of Smt. Minati Baidya. He got hundred ten) only in SB-7 (withdrawal form) having noted 'Al' on the top .of the withdrawal form without comparing the signature af the depositor in 58-7 with specimen signatures on record in the post office.
The said SB-7 bears the signature of one "Mamata Mazumder as depositor. He did not obtain SB-7A form for closure of the said MIS A/c. Neither any cheque was issued for payment of the said MIS A/c nor was any re-investment made, of the closure amount, in ~ any saving scheme, in the name of the depositor. He fraudulently withdrew the amount by getting the transaction done through another counter resulting in the defalcation of 748,510.00 (Rupees Forty eight thousand five hundred ten) only in the said account. Thus, Sri Biswajit Dey, acted in contravention'of Rule 33(5)(1) af POSB Manual Voil-1; Dte's letter no. 1] 1-14/2001-SB(SB order no 11/2006) dated 25-05 06, conveyed through the Chief PMG, WB Circle letter no. SB/R-1681/SB Rules/Ch-VI/Pt- dated 06-06-2006, _ circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North Kolkata Division letter no, SB/Ruling/N/Ch-l dated 10-07-2006; Dte's communication no. 113-11/2003- SB (58 order no 3/2008) dated . 19-02-2008 conveyed through the Chief PMG, W B Circle letter no. SB/R 1681/SB Rules/Ch-VI dated 28-02-2008, circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North Kolkata Division letter no SB/Ruling/elarification/N/Ch-11 and 04-03-2008: and by doing so, Sri Biswajit Dey violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1) (ti), 3(L) (tii) af CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. ARTICLE-II _ Sri Biswajit Dey, PA, Shyambazar DSO (under suspension), while working as PA, Dum Dum MDG on 26-11-2009, prematurely closed one MIS A/c bearing no 45977, opened on 11-08-2008 for 49,500.00 (Rupees Forty nine thousand five hundred) only, in the name of Smt. Minati Baidya. He got the warrant of payment duly passed by the ASPM-I for %48,510.00 (Rupees Forty eight thousand five hundred ten) only in SB-7 (withdrawal form) having noted "RI" on the top of the withdrawal form without comparing the
- signature of the depositors in SB-7 with specimen signature on record in the post office. 3 . 0.A..422 of 2018 -
The said SB-7 bears signature of one "Mamata Mazumder as depositor. He did not 7 obtain SB-7A form for closure of the said MIS A/c. Neither he made any payment by cheque nor did he make any re- investment, of the closure amount, in any saving scheme, in the name of the. depositor. He fraudulently withdrew the amount by getting the transaction done through another counter resulting in the defalcation of 48,510.00 (Rupees Forty eight thousand five hundred ten) only in the said account. Thus, Sri Biswajit Dey, acted in contravention of Rule 33(3)(i) of POSB Manual Vol.-I:
Die's letter no. 11 1-14/2001-SB(SB order no. 11/2006) dated 25-05-06, conveyed through the Chief PMG, W B Circle letter no. SB/R-1681/SB Rules/Ch-VI/Pt.-I dated 06-06-2006, circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North Kolkata Division letter no. SB/Ruling/N/Ch-I dated 10-07-2006; Dte's communication no. 113-11/2003- SB (SB order no.3/2008) dated 19-02-2008 conveyed through the Chief PMG, W B Circle letter no. SB/R- 1681/SB _ Rules/Ch-VI' dated 28-02-2008, circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North Kolkata Division letter no. 58/Ruling/clarification/N/Ch-II and 04-03-2008; and by doing so, Sri. Biswajit Dey violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1) (ii), 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1 964.
ARTICLE-II Sri Biswajit Dey, PA, Shyambazar DSO (under suspension), while working as PA, Dum Dum MDG on 21-12-2010, prematurely closed two MIS A/c bearing no 50512, opened on 09-12-2009 for 45,000.00 Rupees Forty Five Thousand) only and MIS A/c bearing n0.50648, opened on 15-12-2009 for €45000.00 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand) only, in the name of Sri D.H. Rakshit (Dayal Hari Rakshit} and Smt. Arati Rakhsit. He got the two. warrant of payment duly passed by the ASPM-I for %44400.00 Rupees Forty Four - ' Thousand Four Hundred) only in SB-7A (closyre form), each, for above two accounts, without comparing the signatures of the depositor in SB-7A with specimen signatures on. record in the post office. The closure proceeds of both the MIS A/cs for %44,400.00 (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Four Hundred) only each, i. e total of 88,800.00 (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred) only was transferred to SB A/e of Sri D. H. Rakshit (Dayal Hari Rakshit), bearing no 562311, opened on 08-12-2010) allegedly without the consent of the depositors, wherefrom withdrawal of the whole amount of 188,800.00(Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred) only was done by Sri Biswajit Dey, on the same day, i. e. on 21-12-2010, without comparing the specimen signature of -- the depositor in SB-7 with the specimen signatures on record; resulting in the defalcation. of ®88, 800.00 (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred) only in the said SB A/c.
Thus, Sri Biswajit Dey, acted in contravention of Rule 33(5)(i) of POSB Manual Vol-1; and by doing. so, Sri Biswajit Dey violated Rule 30M i), 31) ii), 3(D (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1564 ARTICLE-IV Sri Biswajit Dey, PA, Shyambazar DSO (under suspension), while working as PA, Dum Dum MDG on 16-10-2009, prematurely closed one MIS A/c bearing no.38815, opened -- on 13-10-2005 for 12,000.00 (Rupees Twelve Thousand) only, in the name of Smt. Asima Paul. He got the warrant of payment duly passed by the ASPM-I for %11,960.00 (Rupees Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty) only, without comparing the signature of the depositors in SB-7 with specimen signature on record in the post office. He did not obtain SB-7A form for closure of the said MIS A/c. No payment was made to the depositor. He ' fraudulently withdrew the amount by getting the transaction done through another counter and he defalcated the whole amount of 711,960.00 (Rupees J Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred & Sixty) only in the said account.
Thus, Shi Biswajit Dey, acted in contravention of Rule 33(5) (i) of POSB Manual Vol.-I; Dte's letter no. 11 1-14/2001-SB/SB order no 11/2006) dated 25-05 06, conveyed through ' the Chief PMG, W B Circle letter no SB/R-1681/SB Rules/Ch-VI/Pt.-I dated 06-06-2006, circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North Kolkata Division letter no. Sb/Ruling/N/Ch-l dated 10-07-2006; and by doing so, Sri Biswajit Dey violated Rule 3(Dfi Ds 3D) ii), 3(1) (iti) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
A a O.A. 422 of 2018 ARTICLE-V _ Sri Biswajit Dev, PA, Shivambazar DSO (under suspension), while working as PA, Dum Dum MDG on 23-02-2010, closed prematurely one MIS A/c bearing no. 38613, opened on 20-09-2005 for 60,000.00 (Rupees Sixty thousand) only, in the name of Sri Pravash Chandra Dev and Smt, Minati Dev He got the warrant of payment duly passed by the ASPM-I for %59,400.00 (Rupees Fifty nine thousand four hundred) only, He did not obtain SB-7A form for closure of the said MIS A/c. Neither any cheque was issued for payment of the said MIS A/e nor any re-investment was made, of the closure amount, in any saving scheme, in the name of the depositors, resulting in the defalcation of 59,400.00 (Rupees Fifty nine thousand four hundred) only in the said account Thus, Sri Biswajit Dey, acted in contravension of Rule 33(3)(i) of POSB Manual Vol-1, _ Dte's letter no, 111-14/2001-58 dated 25-05 06, conveyed through the Chief PMG, WB Cirele letter no. SB/R 1681/SB Rules/Ch-Vi/Pt. -I dated 06-06-2006, circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North Kolkata Division letter no. SB/Ruling/N/Ch-l dated 10-07-2006, Die's communication no, 113-11/2003-SB (SB order no 3/2008) dated 19-02-2008 conveyed through the Chief PMG, W B Circle letter no. SB/R-1681/58 Rules/Ch-Vil dated | 28-02-2008, circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North. Kolkata Division letter no SB/Ruling/clarification/N/Ch-ll and 04-03-2008, and by doing so Sri Biswajit Dey violated Rule 3(1){i), 3(1) (ii), 3) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
ARTICLE-VI Sri Biswajit Dey, PA, Shyambazar DSO (under suspension), while working as PA, Dum Dum MDG on 14-12-2010, fraudulently closed one MIS A/c bearing no.48384, opened on 26-06-2009 for 49500.00(Rupees Forty nine.thousand five hundred) only, in the name of Smt. Aparna Chakraborty, who had expired on 22-10-2009. He got the warrant of _ payment duly passed by the ASPM-I for 248,840.00 (Rupees Forty eight thousand eight hundred forty) only without comparing the signature of the depositor with the specimen signatures kept on record at the Post Office. The closure proceeds of the MIS A/c was transferred to SB A/c no. 561532, opened (on 27-07-2010) irregularly after the death of the depositor Smt: Aparna Chakraborty. Again, on the same day, le 14.12.2010 Sri . Biswajit Dey fraudulently withdrew a sum of 22,02, 586.00, (Rupees Two lac two thousand five hundred eighty six) only from the said SB A/c, with the help of SB-7 having fake signature of Aparna Chakraborty resulting in the defalcation of €2,02,586.00(Rupees Two lac two thousand five hundred & eighty six) only.
Thus, Sri Biswajit Dey, acted in contravension of Rule 33(3)(i) of POSB Manual Vol.-1; Dte's letter no. 111-14/2001-SB dated 25-05 06, conveyed through the Chief PMG, WB Circle letter no. SB/R- 1681/38 Rules/Ch-VI/Pt.-I dated 06-06-2006, circulated by the Sr. Supdt. of Pos, North Kolkata Division letter no. Sb/Ruling/N/Ch-I dated 10-07-2006; and by doing so, Sri Biswajit Dey violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(D) Gi), 3(D (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964." ;
b) The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the charged officer.
c) The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.08.2017 with the finding that all the six charges framed against the charged officer stand established and proved.
Wd 5 . . OA. 422 of 2018 qd) A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was served upon the _ charged official on 18.09.2017 as per the procedure laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
@) Shri Biswajit Dey submitted his representation on the report of the Enquiry Officer on 20.10.2017.
-#) The Disciplinary Authority passed an order vide Memorandum No. F4-1/04 /2011/ N/ B Dey dated 11.12.2017, wherein he imposed the penalty of "removal from service upon Shri Biswajit Dey with immediate effect which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government." 'g) Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, Shri Biswajit Dey filed an Original Application being O.A. No. 350/1739/2017 before this Tribunal which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2017 with the following observations and directions :
"4. After perusal of the papers, 1 do not find any appeal preferred by the applicant. Admittedly Mr, Sarkar submitted that there is no such appeal filed by the applicant against the punishment order. In my view Rule 23 of CCS (CCA) Rules has not been complied with by the applicant. Hence the applicant is directed to make an appeal before. the authority against the penalty order imposed by the Disciplinary Authority within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
5. It is further directed to the Appellate Authority that if such appeal filed by the applicant, is received, the same may be disposed of within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same, The decision so arrived shall be immediately communicated to the application." ' é ~h) . The Appellate Authority, vide Memorandum No. - Vig/Z-
1/1/18/Appeal/KR dated 01.03.2018, rejected the appeal of the charged officer tl 6 : _ | | O.A, 422 of 2018 'Shri Biswajit Dey and upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary _ Authority, vide his order dated 11.12.2017.
i) Agegrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the applicant has filed this Original Application.
3. | In. the Original Application, the main submissions made .by the applicant are summarised as below: --
- a) As per the Divisional Inquiry Report into the alleged fraud, one Smt. Sabita. Ghosh fs believed to be the principal offender who has committed the fraud with the assistance from the staff of Dum Dum MDG.
b) Asum of Rs. 13,40,906/- has been recovered from the applicant.
c) The punishment imposed upon the applicant is a case 'of double jeopardy and is highly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
d) He did not violate the departmental rules particularly Rule 33(5}(a) of POSB Manual, Vol. | and hence there is no question of his violating Rule 3(1){i), 3(1){ii), and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. | e) in Govt. of India's decision No. (23) below Rule (3)(c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 a list of acts/conduct which amount to misconduct has been appended wherefrom it may be seen that the alleged violation of Rule 33(5)(1) of POSB Manual Vol.|. and communication on the issue of cheque and the payment of Rs. 20,000/- and above do not fall under the acts/ conduct amounting to misconduct. As such, the alleged Violation did not attract the provisions of Rule 3(1)(1), 3(1)(1) & 3(1){ill). of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. _
f) The prosecution failed to prove the charges against him on the basis of evidence adduced during the enquiry proceedings. Qe 2 7 ; O.A. 422 of 2018 -
g) The written brief submitted on behalf of the prosecution by the Presenting Officer is not a reasoned document and ought not be taken into consideration.
h) | He was-denied access to official records and was not supplied copies of documents as provided under Rule 14(20)(i} of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. As per Rule 14(20)(ii) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein it has been decided to refuse _ access to official records to the delinquent officials, reasons for such refusal should be recorded in writing but in the instant case, no such reason was assigned for refusing access to.such documents which had been sought by him doing the enquiry proceedings.
"Xl) The entire departmental proceedings as also the chargesheet, enquiry report and the punishment order are not at all sustainable inasmuch as, the authorities concerned -
a) had arrived to their decision and findings on no evidence;
b) had based their decision and finding on materials not admissible and
- excluded relevant materials and/or relevant aspects involved therein;
c) had not applied their mind to all relevant materials and had not considered the same in coming to their conclusion and decision;
d) had come to the conclusion by considering materials which were irrelevant or by considering materials which were partly relevant and partly irrelevant;
XIl) The entire proceeding right from initiation of the proceeding, Issuance of charge sheet, holding enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and the order of punishment are .arbitrary, whimsical, malicious, capricious, violative of the @____>
8 0.A. 422 of 2018 principles of natural and procedural justices, rule of law and the same offends Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
XIV) No authority can on the one hand recover a sum of Rs. 13,40,906/- from the applicant and also impose punishment of removal from service thereby awarding double punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case..
4. _ Per contra, the submissions made by the respondents are summarised as below:
a) The procedure laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, has strictly been followed by the Disciplinary Authority. Since the applicant denied the charges levelled against him, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry proceedings were held as per rule. During enquiry, after exhibition of the documents on behalf of the prosecution (respondents) and defence (applicant), _ taking into account the record, examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was provided to the applicant to enable him to make his representation. After submission of the representation of the applicant 'on the Enquiry Report, the same was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority.
Further, the Disciplinary Authority after considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the | applicant. Further, the Appellate Authority has duly considered the appeal of the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules and passed his order rejecting appeal against the applicant.
b) The punishment order dated 11.12.2017 is self-explanatory. The order of punishment has been issued considering all relevant facts and bert) . 0 9 co oe | O.A. 422 of 2018 _ circumstances which -were brought out and. after application of judicial mind properly and adequately, 7 | c) The submission of the applicant that the respondents have already recovered huge amount from the applicant is not correct. The respondents never | directed for recovery, rather the applicant himself made a voluntary deposit in government account for the sake of avoiding consequences arising out of the
-- misdeed. Hence, the contention of the applicant that the respondents have
- committed double jeopardy is not correct. No substantive document was placed that an order/direction has been issued -for the recovery by the respondents.
-(d) The penalty of removal from service was rightly imposed upon the applicant after analysing his erring part following involvement in the embezzlement on misappropriation of government money.
5. | We have. heard td. Counsel for both sides and have examined the DP tray ins 2/ material on record.
6. | The applicant had been charge-sheeted on the basis of a preliminary divisional level enquiry conducted by Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, North Kolkata Division dated 17. 05.2013. 'The said enquiry revealed, prima facie, the involvement of the applicant. in the fraud. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant which culminated in _ the order-of punishment of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
7. . We find 'that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant were conducted -as per the procedure laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. We also find that the applicant was ; provided adequate opportunity to NieL oO 100 7 OT O.A. 422 of 2018 . defend himself during the course 'of the. disciplinary proceedings. During the proceedings held by the Enquiry Officer, he was provided. 'opportunity to examine ~ and cross- examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution. He was also provided opportunity to examine the documentary evidence produced during the _ enquiry proceedings. He was also provided the benefit of general examination as required under the rules. Further, the report of the Enquiry Officer was also provided to the applicant as required under the rules to enable him to make a - representation which he 'made to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and all other relevant _ facts and circumstances of the case imposed the penalty of removal from service. We therefore find no infirmity in the 'proceedings conducted against the applicant.
The applicant had submitted a statutory appeal against the order of 4\ punishment imposed upon him by 'the Disciplinary Authority which was considered by the Appellate Authority, who however rejected the appeal, vide his @ detailed order dated 01.03.2018, and upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority. We have perused the order of the Appellate Authority and have found : that the Appellate Authority has considered the points raised by the appellant (applicant) and after due consideration of the same has passed his order. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority.
8. No material was placed by the applicant to show that he was 'directed by the Disciplinary Authority to deposit the sum of Rs. 13,40,906/- In Government account. We therefore, do. not agree with the contention of the applicant that he has been punished twice for the same offence. tu) oT 11 , O.A. 422 of 2018 © 9, The scope for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Parma Nanda Vs. State of 'Haryana & & Ors. 1989 (2) SCC 1 177 has observed as under :
"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 | Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse, 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 _ with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter 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. The adequacy © _ of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the -- Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.
We may, however, carve out one exception to this proposal. There may be cases where the penalty is imposed under Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Where the person without inquiry is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank solely on the basis of conviction of a criminal court, the Tribunal may --
examine the adequacy of the penalty imposed in the light of the conviction and sentence inflicted on the person. if the penalty:
imposed is apparently unreasonable or uncalled for, having regard to the nature of the criminal charge, the Tribunal may step in to render substantial justice. The Tribunal may remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration or by itself substitute one of _ the penalties provided under Clause (a)."
In the case of State Bank of India Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow. (1994 (1) SLR 516) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a High Court or Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. lt has observed as under:
bead . 12 | OA. 422 of 2018 "On the question of punishment, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the punishment awarded its excessive and that lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. It may be noticed that _ the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority. it may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. tt "is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made". In other words, the power of judicial review is meant "to ensure that the individual received fair treatment and not _ to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a@ matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself a _ conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court."
10. In view -of the above discussion, we find no merit in this Original Application. The Original Application is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(Rajnish: umar Rai) -- (Anindo Majumdar) Member (J) | . Member (A) DB