Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anil Kumar Gupta vs General Manager, N E Rly on 4 February, 2026
O.A./71/2016
(Reserved on 16.01.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.71 of 2016
th
Pronounced on this the 04 Day of February, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Anil Kumar Gupta, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Gupta,
R/o Maduhadih Bazar, Infront of L.I.C. Office, Varanasi.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India, through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Varanasi.
4. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Varanasi.
5. Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Varanasi.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"i) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set-aside all the three impugned orders dated 21.02.2013, passed by respondent no.5, impugned Appellate Order dated 06.05.2013 passed by respondent no.4 and impugned revisional order dated 20.10.2015 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure A-1 to Annexure-A-3 with Compilation No.1).
ii) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the original pay scale giving all the arrears of the amounts which has already been deducted by way of reducing the time scale of pay.
Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 1 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016
iii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give all the consequential benefits as if said punishment has never been imposed.
iv) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such other and /or further order as deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
v) award costs to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground as commercial clerk on 26.03.1998 and promoted to the cadre of enquiry cum reservation clerk in the year 2003. On 04.06.2012, the applicant was placed under suspension in contemplation of a Departmental Inquiry. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked and a memorandum of charge was served upon the applicant on 12.07.2012 on SF-5 meant for major punishment. An inquiry officer was appointed on 26.07.2012. The applicant submitted an application to the inquiry officer to summon the witnesses on 16.08.2012. On 11.12.2012, the applicant submitted his written defence brief under Rule 9(22) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968. On 31.12.2012, the inquiry officer submitted his report proving both the charges against the applicant against which the applicant submitted his representation to the disciplinary authority on 10.01.2013 seeking opportunity of personal hearing. On 21.02.2013, respondent no.5 imposed the punishment of reduction in pay scale to three stages for five years without cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal on 08.04.2013 which was turned down on 06.05.2013 and the revision preferred by the applicant was also rejected on 20.10.2015. Hence, the present O.A.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that while the applicant was performing his duty on 03.06.2012 at tatkal window No.920 for Selling Ticket at Varanasi City Railway Station, applicant was trapped by two Vigilance Inspectors namely Shri V.P. Tripathi and Shri Ramesh Pandey alongwith Shri V.K. Verma, Commercial Superintendent on duty and without letting him refund the balance amounts to the bonafide passengers the Vigilance seized the money for refunding and levelled two Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 2 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 allegations i.e. applicant overcharged Rs. 1200/- and Rs. 500/- which was subsequently refunded to the bonafide passengers and that Rs. 1470/- was found excess and thus applicant violated Rule 3(1)(II, II, III) of conduct Rules, 1966. On account of contemplation of departmental inquiry, applicant was placed on suspension vide order dated 04.06.2012. It is submitted that on 19.06.2012, one Shri Rajesh Kumar, made an application with an affidavit to the Sr. D.C.M. i.e. Respondent No.4 pointing out this fact that on 3.6.2012, Vigilance i.e. one person suddenly appeared and he did not give me time to take my money i.e. Rs. one thousand five hundred (Rs. 1,500/-), from window No.920 at Varanasi City Station therefore, the said amounts may be returned. It is argued that the applicant was trapped by the Vigilance in utter disregard of Rule 307.4 and 307.5 (I to IV) of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual 2006, as none of the ingredients for trapping the delinquent/applicant has been followed by the Vigilance and on the basis of concocted and fabricated story two charges have been levelled which are completely baseless and false on the basis of record itself. Rule 307.5(I) to (IV), which is quoted below :-
"307.5(1) one or more responsible and impartial witness/witnesses must hear the conversation, which should establish that the money was being passed as illegal gratification. This would squarely meet the likely defence of the accused that the money was actually received as a loan or something else.
(ii) The Transaction should be within the sight and hearing of the Independent witness/witnesses.
(iii) There should be an opportunity to catch the culprit red-handed immediately after the bribe money has changed hands so that the accused may not be able to get rid of it.
(iv) The witnesses selected should not have appeared as witnesses in earlier cases of the department. It is safer to take as witness a Government employee who belongs to some other department.
Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 3 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016
4. As such, learned counsel for the applicant argued that, from the perusal of Annexure-IV of charge sheet (Annexure-A-4) it goes without saying that this is the case of No Evidence as there are total three witnesses and out of them one is commercial superintendent on duty and two are Chief Vigilance Inspectors themselves who trapped the applicant and also recommended for levelling the charges. It is submitted that without considering the denial of charges by the applicant, respondent no.5 vide order dated 26.07.2012 appointed the Inquiry Inspector of Vigilance Department namely Shri Md. Anis as an Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry against the applicant who was trapped by the Vigilance. Vide letter dated 16.08.2012, the applicant requested the Inquiry Officer to provide the Requisition Form and also for summoning the three independent witnesses namely Smt. Nootan Rastogi, Ganga Prasad and Ms. Shruti Gupta. On 26.11.2012 above named Shri Rajesh Kumar served reminders for refunding the amount of Rs. 1500/- which made an allegation of excess amount found from the applicant as he had not been given opportunity to collect this money from window No.920 as Vigilance Inspectors interfered.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 30.11.2012, applicant submitted his Statement of Defence U/R 9(19) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968 to the inquiry officer pointing out this fact that he has deliberately been made a scapegoat by the vigilance team and that is why not a single independent witness was taken into confidence and it also violated Rule 704 and 705 readwith 307-5(I) to (IV) of Railway Vigilance Manual. The applicant submitted his written defence brief on 11.12.2012, under Rule 9(22) of the R.S. (D&A) Rules, 1968 to the inquiry officer elaborating entire factual position of trapping the applicant illegally which is itself established from the perusal of statement given by the team of Vigilance during inquiry and as such requested to the inquiry officer for adopting fairness as applicant apprehended bias as the inquiry officer was a staff of Vigilance Department. After completion of all the formalities the Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 4 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 Inquiry Officer in complete disregard of Rule 704, 705 of Railway Vigilance Manual read with 307.5 (I to IV) 2006 Amended Manual, unfairly proved both the charges.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant averred that since the initial stage of trapping the applicant on concocted and fabricated story, respondent no.5 appears to be very biased and was pre-determined to punish the applicant and imposed the major punishment of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of five years without cumulative effect and that from the perusal of impugned order dated 21.02.2013, it goes without saying that this is completely non-speaking order which is based on "suspicion" as it is mentioned by the Respondent No.5 "इनकी सत्यनिष्ठा को संदिग्ध बनाता है ।". He further alleged that the Appellate Authority adopted the same attitude as adopted by Disciplinary Authority and vide impugned order dated 06.05.2013 turned down the appeal of applicant confirming the punishment as imposed by respondent no.5. and without considering the Revision of applicant the revisional authority turned-down the revision on the ground of delay without going into the merit.
7. The applicant has specifically made the argument that appointment of Inquiry Officer is itself illegal in the light of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon in which it is observed that "Raid against respondent conducted by Vigilance Department and Chief of Vigilance Department appointed as Inquiry Officer held not fair such appointment should have been avoided". In the instant case also vigilance has trapped the applicant ignoring all the rules and norms of Railway Vigilance Manual which is conceded by all the witnesses of vigilance team and as such on the basis of sequence of proceedings it is made abundantly clear as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court further that "Departmental enquiry-fairness-held, if disciplinary proceedings have not been conducted fairly, presumption can be drawn that this caused prejudice to the charged employee". It is Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 5 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 mentioned that similar controversy has been raised in O.A. No.906 of 2014, Md. Ibrahim Vs. Union of India and others and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to stay the effect and operation of impugned orders and same is confirmed by Hon'ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 in Writ-A No.7807 of 2015, Union of India and 4 others Vs. Md. Ibrahim and another. Similar controversy arose in O.A. No.330/01183 of 2015, in which Disciplinary Authority imposed the severe financial punishment on the basis of suspicion and therefore, after inviting the short counter for considering the interim order the Hon'ble Tribunal consisting the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Shashi Prakash, then Member(A) and Hon'ble Dr. Murtaza Ali, J.M. stayed all the three impugned orders vide its order dated 15.10.2015 stayed all the three impugned orders. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant argued that in view of the above facts and legal position balance of convenience is completely in favour of applicant and therefore, this Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents as an interim measure to pay the original salary to the applicant by not giving the effect of impugned orders dated 21.02.2013, 06.05.2013 and 20.10.2015, otherwise applicant will suffer an irreparable less.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the vigilance organization is headed by the Senior Deputy General Manager (SDGM), who is also designated as the Chief Vigilance Officer of Zonal Railways. Further, as per Para 103.4 of the Vigilance Manual, there is also a full- fledged inquiry organization under the administrative control of SDGM to deal with D&A (Discipline and Appeal) inquiries arising from vigilance cases. This organization is manned by Inquiry Assistant Officers (Sr. Scale), Inquiry Officers (Jr. Scale) and Inquiry Inspectors. Those are selected after due procedure from different independent departments to conduct an impartial inquiry without interference from the department concerned. It is further clarified that SDGM is ex-officio Chief Vigilance Officer at Zonal Level under the provisions of Chief Vigilance Commission Act, who is also doing administrative work in the capacity of SDGM and keeping a close Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 6 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 watch over function of vigilance officers/ inspectors, for impartial inquiry without any influence.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant while posted as Reservation Clerk and performing his duty on 3.06.2012 at Varanasi City Railway Station was trapped by Vigilance Team, demanding excess money from the passengers in lieu of booking of reservation under Tatkal scheme. On the basis of complaints by the passengers, applicant was trapped and found with excess money of Rs. 1470/- and further overcharging of Rs. 1200/- and 500/- from the passengers which was refunded at the same time after trapping. Subsequently, the applicant was suspended w.e.f. 4.06.2012 and charge sheet was served vide SF-5 dated 12.07.2012. As per provisions of the Vigilance Manual the disciplinary authority appointed Sri Mohd. Aneesh was an inquiry officer from a panel of inquiry headed by Senior Deputy General Manager. After giving full opportunity to defend his case and perusal of relevant record and following principle of natural justice the officer has submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges to be proved against the applicant.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant's allegation that the inquiry officer was biased being from the vigilance department, is not true and the inquiry officer has been appointed as per the special provision under the Vigilance Manual for speedy and transparent investigation and conduct of inquiry. There is a team of impartial inquiry officers who are empanelled from the different departments under Para 103.4 Vigilance Manual. The applicant has placed no evidence on record to show that the inquiry officer acted under the influence of the Vigilance Department while conducting the impartial inquiry against him. He has mere expressed apprehensions. Since the applicant was caught red handed while charging excess amount of Rs. 1200/- and 500/- from the passengers and further excess of Rs. 1470/- was found from his counter for which no record was maintained i.e. in totality an amount of Rs. 3170/- was recovered from the Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 7 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 applicant in which Rs. 1200/- and 500/- was returned to concerned passenger.
11. It is further submitted by the respondents that on the basis of inquiry report dated 26.12.2012 disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice vide letter dated 31.12.2012 and after receipt of the representation of the applicant the disciplinary authority has passed the reasoned and speaking order dated 21.02.2013 imposing punishment of down grading the applicant from original pay scale to three stages below for a period of five years temporarily which was further confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide reasoned and speaking order dated 6.05.2013, on the appeal filed by the applicant. Subsequently, the revision applicant was also rejected vide order dated 20.10.2015 as time barred. From perusal of the aforesaid orders there is nothing that shows biasness, influence of vigilance, denial in following principles of natural justice or of provisions of Railway (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and any Vigilance Manual.
12. Further contentions of learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submissions is that the Hon'ble Apex Court has examined a number of cases arising out of disciplinary proceedings, and thereafter came to conclusion in the case of Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 583, that "While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority." Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. Ors., AIR follows:- 2000 801, held as under:- "Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 8 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene." In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "We are of the view that even in our country-in cases not involving fundamental freedoms- the role of our courts/tribunals in administrative law is purely secondary and while applying Wednesbury and CCSU principles to test the validity of executive action or of administrative action taken in exercise of statutory powers, the Court and Tribunals in our country can only go into the matter, as a secondary reviewing Court to find out if the executive or the administrator in their primary roles have arrived at a reasonable decision on the material before them in the light of Wednesbury and CCSU test. The choice of the options available is for the authority; the court/ tribunal cannot substitute its view as to what is reasonable." In addition to this it is further submitted that proof as described under Evidence Act are not applicable in the strict sense under departmental proceedings and the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1999 (5) SCC 762 (Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayan) observed that "Strict Rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer."
13. The respondents state that the documents asked by the applicant were provided by the Inquiry Officer. However, after closing of evidence, the applicant sought summoning of Smt. Nutan Rastogi, Ganga Prasad and Shruti Gupta as witnesses, which was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2012. As per para 307.4 of Vigilance Manual, beside the Gazetted Officer, one non Gazetted Officer can also be made as witness, accordingly Sri V.K. Verma Station Superintendent, a non Gazetted Officer made an impartial witness. It is next submitted that the charges against the applicant are serious in nature, which has been proved by the Inquiry Officer Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 9 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 after giving full opportunity of defence to the applicant following principle of natural justice. The disciplinary authority has acted as per rule and passed the orders impugned in this O.A. Thus, there is no instance of illegality of violation of rules in the present case and the same may be dismissed.
14. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and another (Civil Appeal No.1729 of 2008) [(2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 484] decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 04.03.2008 and the case of Prakash Kumar Tandon vs. Union of India and ors Civil Appeal No. 7349 of 2008 [2009 (2) SCC 541] decided by the Hon'ble Apex court on 17.12.2008. In the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and another (supra) relied upon by the applicant, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"12. Indisputably the decoy passenger was a constable of RPF. Only one Head Constable from the said organization was deputed to witness the operation. The number of witness was, thus, not only one, in place of two but also was a non gazetted officer. It was a pre-planned trap and thus even independent witnesses could have also been made available.
13. When the decoy passenger purchased the ticket, the Head Constable was at a distance of 30 meters. The booking counter was a busy one. It normally remains crowded. Before the Enquiry Officer, the said decoy passenger accepted that he had not counted the balance amount received from the appellant after buying the ticket It was only half an hour later that the Vigilance Team arrived and searched the appellant.
14. While we say so we must place on record that this Court in the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Ors. vs. G. Ratnam and Ors. :
(2007) 8 SCC 212 opined that non-adherence of the instructions laid down in Paras 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual would not invalidate a departmental proceeding, stating :-
"17. We shall now examine whether on the facts and the material available on record, non-adherence of the instructions as laid down in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual would invalidate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents and rendering the Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 10 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 consequential orders of penalty imposed upon the respondents by the authorities, as held by the High Court in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the departmental traps were conducted by the investigating officers when the respondents were on official duty undertaking journey on trains going from one destination to another destination. The Tribunal in its order noticed that the decoy passengers deployed by the investigation officers were RPF Constables in whose presence the respondents allegedly collected excess amount for arranging sleeper class reservation accommodation etc. to the passengers. The transaction between the decoy passengers and the respondents was reported to have been witnessed by the RPF Constables. In the facts and circumstances of the matters, the Tribunal held that the investigations were conducted by the investigating officers in violation of the mandatory Instructions contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, 1996, on the basis of which inquiries were held by the Enquiry Officer which finally resulted in the imposition of penalty upon the respondents by the Railway Authority. The High Court in its impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Reports in the absence of joining any independent witnesses in the departmental traps, are found inadequate and where the Instructions relating to such departmental trap cases are not fully adhered to, the punishment imposed upon the basis of such defective traps are not sustainable under law. The High Court has observed that in the present cases the service of some RPF Constables and Railway staff attached to the Vigilance Wing were utilised as decoy passengers and they were also associated as witnesses in the traps. The RPF Constables, in no terms, can be said to be independent witnesses and non- association of independent witnesses by the investigating officers in the investigation of the departmental trap cases has caused prejudice to the rights of the respondents in their defence before the Enquiry Officers.
18. We are not inclined to agree that the non- adherence of the mandatory Instructions and Guidelines contained in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual has vitiated the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents by the Railway Authority. In our view, such finding and reasoning are wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained."
It has been noticed in that judgments that Paras 704 and 705 cover the procedures and guidelines to be followed by the investigating officers, who are Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 11 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 entrusted with the task of investigation of trap cases and departmental trap cases against the railway officials. This Court proceeded on the premise that the executive orders do not confer any legally enforceable rights on any persons and impose no legal obligation on the subordinate authorities for whose guidance they are issued.
15. We have, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded on the assumption that the said paragraphs being executive instructions do not create any legal right but we intend to emphasise that total violation of the guidelines together with other factors could be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the department has been able to prove the charges against the delinquent official. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
23. The High Court has only noticed paragraph 704 of the Manual and not the paragraph 705 thereof. Paragraph 705 was very relevant and in any event both the provisions were required to be read together.
The High Court, thus, committed a serious error in not taking into consideration paragraph 705 of the Manual.
The approach of the High Court, in our opinion, was not entirely correct. If the safeguards are provided to avoid false implication of a railway employee, the procedures laid down therein could not have been given a complete go bye.
24. It is the High Court who posed unto itself a wrong question. The onus was not upon the appellant to prove any bias against the RPF, but it was for the department to establish that the charges levelled against the appellant.
Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 12 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016
25. The High Court also committed a serious error in opining that sub- rule (21) of Rule 9 of the Rules was not imperative. The purpose for which the sub-rule has been framed is clear and unambiguous. The railway servant must get an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him. In this case he has been denied from the said opportunity.
26. The cumulative effect of the illegalities/irregularities were required to be taken into consideration to judge as to whether the departmental proceeding stood vitiated or not.
27. For the aforementioned purpose, the manner in which the enquiry proceeding was conducted was required to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The trap was not conduced in terms of the Manual ; the Enquiry Officer acted as a Prosecutor and not as an independent quasi judicial authority ; he did not comply with Rule 9(21) of the Rules, evidently, therefore, it was not a case where the order of the Tribunal warranted interference at the hands of the High Court."
In the case of Prakash Kumar Tandon vs. Union of India and ors (supra), on which the applicant has placed reliance, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined as under:-
"14. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated only after a raid was conducted by the Vigilance Department. The enquiry officer was the Chief of the Vigilance Department. He evidently being from the Vigilance Department, with a view to be fair to the delinquent officer, should not have been appointed as an enquiry officer at all.
15. From the evidence of another Assistant Engineer who had taken part in the raid, it is evident that the alleged loss caused to the railways was negligible and mere marginal allowances are permitted for measurement of `scantlings and planks'.
16. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as also the High Court cannot be said to have erred in holding that the said Mr. Walia should have been examined as a witness.
17. The principles of natural justice demand that an application for summoning a witness by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 13 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 enquiry officer is a quasi judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice.
18. In M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 88], this Court has held :
"Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with."
19. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby.
20. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 379, this Court has held that non-compliance of the principles of natural justice itself causes prejudice. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said principle has since been watered down but in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that the concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference.
21. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-"
15. The applicant further placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.M. Saudagar (Dead) through Legal Heirs vs The Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.13017 of 2025) [2025 INSC 1257] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the CAT was fully justified in setting aside the order of penalty when the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse based on completely misleading materials produced before him. The applicant has also referred to the judgement of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./850/2002 (K. Satheesh Kumar vs. Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 14 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 Union of India & Ors) decided on 17.09.2009 wherein referring to the case of Moni Shanker the Tribunal found that there was only one witness (instead of two) and that too non-gazetted, the passenger himself was a part of decoy train, the laid down procedure was not followed and mandatory questions as per the Discipline and Appeal Rules were not asked and hence the appeal was allowed.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the judgement of this Tribunal in O.A./1240/2005 (Ashraf Khan vs UOI & ors) decided on 04.11.2011, which was dismissed holding that since the applicant had accepted the modified order of the revisional authority, hence, now he is not entitled to challenge the validity and correctness of the order. In the aforesaid case, while dismissing the O.A, reference was made to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Krishan Niwas (1997) 9 SCC, wherein it has been held that "the respondents accepted the reduced penalty and he joined duty but subsequently filed a suit for declaration that his removal from service, reduction in rank and denial of back wages were illegal......the respondent having accepted the order of appellate authority and joined the post, it was not open to him to challenge the order subsequently. By his conduct, he has accepted the correctness of the order and acted upon it.", and the case of (2001) 9 SCC 402 Sanat Kumar Dwivedi vs Dhar Jila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit and others in which the same position has been reiterated.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on the judgement of this Tribunal in O.A./1091/2010 (U.S. Awasthi through legal heirs vs Union of India and ors) decided on 12.03.2013 wherein the O.A.was dismissed with the following observation:-
15. In the light of above facts, when we consider the present case, we find that the object of Paragraphs- 704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual has been fulfilled by procuring independent witnesses at the time of trapping. Mere non-procurement of the Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 15 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 Gazetted Officers is not fatal to the present case. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of 'Moni Shankar' (supra) has referred to the case of 'Chief Commercial Manager and others Vs. G. Ratnam and others 2008 (1) SC 433, and has expressed its view on the provisions contained in Paragraphs-
704 and 705 of the Vigilance Manual, which is as follows:
"20, We have carefully gone through the contents of various chapters of the Vigilance Manual. Chapters II, III, VIII, IX and Chapter XIII deal with Railway Vigilance Organization and its role, Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of Investigation, Investigation of Complaints by Railway Vigilance, processing of vigilance cases in Railway Board, suspension and relevant aspects of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 as Paragraphs 704 and 705, as relevant to vigilance work etc. noticed earlier, cover the procedures and guidelines to be followed by the Investigating Officers, who are entrusted with the task of investigation of trap cases and departmental trap cases against the Railway officials. Broadly speaking, the administrative rules, regulations and instructions, which have no statutory force, do not give rise to any legal right in favour of the aggrieved party and cannot be enforced in a Court of law against the administration. The executive orders appropriately so called do not confer any legally enforceable rights on any persons and impose no legal obligation on the subordinate authorities for whose guidance they are Issued. Such an order would confer no legal and enforceable rights on the delinquent even if any of the directions is ignored, no right would lie. Their breach may expose the subordinate authorities to disciplinary or other appropriate action, but they cannot be said to be in the nature of statutory rules having the force of law, subject to the jurisdiction of certiorari.
21. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such Instructions Statutory Rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of Statutory Rules, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing there for. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a Writ against Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
In the light of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the above case, it is clear that broadly speaking the administrative rules, regulations and instructions, which have no statutory force, do not give rise to any legal right in favour of the aggrieved party and cannot be enforced in a Court of law against the administration. The executive orders appropriately, Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 16 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 so called, do not confer any legal enforceable rights on any person and Impose no legal obligation on the subordinate authorities for whose guidance they are issued.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases page 364, after discussing various cases on the point of disciplinary inquiry and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon an employee, made the following observations:
"(1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character.
(2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case.
(3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee.
They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under "no_notice", "по opportunity" and "no hearing" categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is self- evident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the Person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 17 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) herein below is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle.
(4)(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee.(emphasis supplied) From the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case, also it is clear that in a case of procedural provisions, which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation of the rules has to be examined from standpoint of substantial compliance. The order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned and prejudiced to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal should inquire whether the provision followed is of substantial nature or whether it is procedural in character. In the present case, since four independent witnesses have been procured at the time of alleged trap, who were not inimical to the appellant nor under pressure of the vigilance team, sufficient opportunity has been given to the applicant to defend himself, he has entered in defence and actively participated in the inquiry proceedings and the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, we can observe that substantial compliance has been done in this case.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the punishment imposed upon the applicant is disproportionate and not commensurate to the gravity of charges and in the similar set of circumstances, others were given only minor punishment. It is pertinent to mention that in order to prove discrimination and arbitrariness in regard to the punishment awarded to the applicant vis-à-vis other persons, the applicant was required to produce copy of the charges and punishment awarded. Same has not been done to enable the Bench to properly appreciate that in similar set of facts and circumstances, different punishment was awarded to those persons. In the present case, the record shows that the applicant has been compulsorily retired with full pensionary benefits. Earlier we have already discussed that full opportunity was given to the applicant to defend his case. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this argument of the applicant, contending that the Tribunal should not interfere in the punishment awarded to the applicant if it is based upon sufficient evidence and it is not arbitrary and malafide or perverse. In the present case, the applicant's counsel could not show any malafide, perversity or arbitrariness. The respondents have placed reliance on the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda in Civil Appeal No. 1709 of 1988 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6998 of 1988 Parma Nanda Vs. State of Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 18 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 Haryana and others, wherein it has been observed "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."
18. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
19. The applicant has vehemently raised his contention that the inquiry officer in this case was from the Vigilance Department itself which has conducted the trap and the three witnesses constitute one non gazetted officer and two gazetted officers from the vigilance department itself and argued that this violates Rule 307.5 of Railway Vigilance Manual, 2006 and Rules 704 and 705 of Indian Railways Vigilance Manual. On the contrary, the respondents argue that as per Para 103.4 of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual, there is also a full-fledged inquiry organization under the administrative control of SDGM, to deal with D&A (Discipline & Appeal) inquiries arising from Vigilance cases. This organization is manned by Inquiry Officers (Sr. Scale), Assistant Inquiry Officers (Junior Scale) and Inquiry Inspectors. The inquiry officer, the respondents argue, was from one such organization to carry out an impartial inquiry in an efficient manner. The respondents further argue that the witnesses were also sufficient and one non-gazetted officer along with two gazetted officers can also be made an impartial witness which has been done in the present case.
Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 19 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016
20. So far as opportunity of hearing is concerned, the applicant has been granted all the opportunity to defend himself as per rules and the same has not been compromised at any stage. The Inquiry Officer, has also been appointed as per Para 103.4 of the Indian Railway Vigilance Manual and although he belonged to the Vigilance Department, he was from a different cell constituted for the purpose of disciplinary inquiry itself. Further, no instance during the inquiry proceeding supports the claim of the applicant that the inquiry officer acted in a biased manner. Thus, the case law in Prakash Kumar Tandon vs. Union of India and ors (supra) cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in Prakash Kumar Tandon (supra), the CVO was the Inquiry Officer. In Moni Shankar (supra) it is observed that the said paragraphs of the vigilance manual being executive instructions do not create any legal right but it has been emphasised that total violation of the guidelines together with other factors could be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the department has been able to prove the charges against the delinquent official. Thus, mere violations of the provisions of para 704 and 705 of the vigilance manual cannot become the sole ground to hold the entire inquiry to be vitiated until other factors are also taken into account. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma (supra) has also observed that procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under "no notice", "по opportunity" and "no hearing" categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. The applicant in the present case has been caught in a vigilance Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 20 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 trap on a complaint from a passenger and the same has been done in presence of an independent witness. Inquiry has also been conducted giving all the opportunity to the applicant to defend himself; the applicant has been found guilty of having doubtful integrity after inquiry and penalty has been imposed accordingly which has been upheld by the appellate and the revisionary authority. The order sheet of the inquiry proceedings dated 30.11.2012 annexed at page 47 of the O.A. records that the charged official's statement was taken under rule 9(19) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968 and in his defence statement the charged official did not demand any witness. The charged official's explanation was also recorded under rule 9(21) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968 and thereafter his written brief was invited under rule 9(22) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968. The applicant has also argued that RUD 6 & 7 is relied upon document but Inquiry Officer has not inquired the writer of the said RUD, so the charged official has not been able to cross examine them, however, the inquiry officer has not solely relied upon the aforesaid documents for proving the charges against the applicant. Records reveal that there are other evidence, witnesses and documents as well that the inquiry officer has relied upon while coming to the said conclusion in the inquiry report. Thus, as has been observed in the case laws cited above, mere aberrations from the vigilance manual which is not legally binding and which has not prejudiced the case of the applicant or compromised his chances of defence, cannot become the basis of quashing the entire departmental proceeding.
21. In a catena of judgments by the Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re-appreciation of evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 21 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale 417 has held as under:-
"The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice".
22. In a large number of cases including the case of Bank of India v.
Apurba Kumar Saha; (1994) 2 SCC 615, State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723, Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279-1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079, State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Another (2011 STPL (web) 904) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raghubir Singh and another, CWP No. 1154/2014 decided on 06.05.2014 by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the underline theme is that the High Court/tribunal 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/Tribunal does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. They have to see whether there is violation of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity committed by the inquiry officer, Disciplinary authority and due procedure was adopted strictly in accordance with the service rule.
Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 22 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016
23. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus P.Gunasekaran 2015 (2) S.C.C. 610 in paras 12, 13 & 20 has held as follows:-
"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, re- appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate 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.
Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 23 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016
(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.
XX XX XX
19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, blamelessness, sincerity, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."
24. The Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 again has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings the Court/Tribunal are not competent and cannot appreciate the evidence. In this regard, the Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges against the appellant to have been proved. After consultation with the UPSC, the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.10.1986. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, upheld all the charges as having been proved but converted the order of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The delinquent filed an appeal challenging the finding on merits, and the Union filed an appeal canvassing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by it. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India and dismissing that of the delinquent.
Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 24 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 Per Ramaswamy and Jeevan Reddy, JJ "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 proceeding. 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."
25. In another case the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v.
Upendra Singh reported in 1994(3)SCC 357 has been pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary enquiry is very limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 25 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be."
26. The Apex Court has also observed in regard to scope of judicial review as well as in regard to the quantum of punishment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Md. Ayub Naaz reported in 2006 (1) SCC 589 as under:-
"10. This Court in Om Kumar and Others vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 while considering the quantum of punishment / proportionality has observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights.
In the instant case, the authorities have not omitted any relevant materials nor any irrelevant fact taken into account nor any illegality committed by the authority nor the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate. The punishment was awarded in the instant case, after considering all the relevant materials and, therefore, in our view, the interference by the High Court on reduction of punishment of removal is not called for."
27. In the case of Union of India Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia reported in 2007 Law Suit (SC) 950, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
"The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty."
28. In the case of State of Meghalaya Vs. Mecken Singh N Marak reported in 2009 Law Suit (SC) 1935, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held as under:-
"A court or a tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in Digitally MADHU KUMARI signed by MADHU Page 26 of 27 KUMARI O.A./71/2016 exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefore. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review."
29. Lastly in the case of Director General, RPF Vs. Sai Babu reported in 2003 Law Suit (SC) 117, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
"4. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants urged that the learned Single Judge was not right and justified in modifying the order of punishment, having observed that the respondent was a habitual offender and due to dereliction of duties, the punishment of stoppage of increments for three years was already ordered in 1984 and that there was no improvement in the conduct of the respondent. He alternatively submitted even if the learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment imposed was grossly or shockingly disproportionate, punishment could not have been modified but the matter could be remitted to the disciplinary authority to re-examine the issue in regard to the imposition of penalty on the respondent. He further submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the merits of the contentions and simply endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge."
30. With respect to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of the aforesaid case laws and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that there lies no scope for intervention of this Tribunal with regard to the relief claimed by the applicant in the present matter. Thus, the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU
KUMARI
signed by
MADHU
Page 27 of 27
KUMARI