Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Vinod Kumar Rajak vs M/O Railways on 26 July, 2024
O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Original Application No.200/00469/2013 Jabalpur, this Friday, the 26th day of July, 2024 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Vinod Kumar Rajak, S/o Shri Mewa Lal Rajak, aged about 57 years, Ex-Head Clerk, T.R.D., West Central Railway, Damoh, R/o Barrack No. 30, Near Sheila Talkies, Jabalpur - 482001 (M.P.)
-Applicant (By Advocate - Shri Manan Agarwal) Versus
1. The Union of India, through its General Manager, West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001
2. The Senior Deputy General Manager-cum-Chief Vigilance Officer, West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001
3. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001
4. Chief Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001
6. The Divisional Personnel Officer (Disciplinary Authority), West Central Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001
- Respondents (By Advocate- Shri D S Baghel) (Date of reserving order: 03.04.2024) Page 1 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 Order By Kumar Rajesh Chandra, AM.
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned charge memo, inquiry report and orders of punishment passed by the authorities.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case of the applicant are that while working as Head Clerk, in office of Senior Divisional Engineer (Carriage and Wagon), W.C.R., Jabalpur, a decoy check by vigilance was conducted on 06.01.2009 against the applicant. Major Penalty charge sheet was issued to the applicant and upon conclusion of inquiry, respondent no. 5 vide impugned order dated 03.02.2011 inflicted penalty of reversion from post of Head Clerk to Junior Clerk with Basic Pay Rs. 13,500 for three years with cumulative effect. The applicant submitted that inquiry report was prepared on dictates of vigilance branch based on consideration of unilateral evidence of Vigilance; and evidences in favour of the applicant were not considered. Vigilance trap was conducted by vigilance branch that too in total violation of binding I.R.V.M. Para 704 & 705, as no independent witness of gazetted rank was present during entire trap. Decoy and Independent witness had to be an impartial person but in the instance case, the decoy as well as the independent witness were not impartial person. The trap was laid by the members of the Page 2 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 Vigilance branch. It was a pre- arranged trap. It was, therefore, not a case which can be said to be an exceptional one where two gazetted officers as independent witnesses were not available. Independent witness did not corroborate the essential fact of Rs. 100 received by the applicant. Independent witness did not hear the conservation between the applicant and the decoy nor did the independent witness corroborate the demand by the present applicant. Chief Vigilance inspector Mr. R.S.Rathore planted independent witnesses- Shri Das, as Mr. Das served as cook at Katni while Mr. R.S. Rathore used to work at Katni as Supervisor. Vigilance department with malafide intent, without any authority dictated the Sr DPO vide letter dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure A/13) to refer revision before revisionary authority. On completion of the inquiry, the applicant submitted his defence to the Inquiry Officer on 25.06.2010 (Annexure A/8) pointing out that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents relied upon by the prosecution do not prove the charges levelled against him. Further, the conduct of the decoy check was not in compliance with Rules of the Railway Vigilance Manual and that there was no evidence to prove the charge. As the same acts of the part of the respondents have deprived applicant of reasonable opportunity to defend the charges against him. The decoy check was executed contrary to the Vigilance Manual in as much as there was no Page 3 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 complaint against the applicant. The charge sheet issued at the dictate of the vigilance would show that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its mind and that the charge memo is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Bajaj & Others Vs. Uol & Others | 2014 (3) SCC 777 ), in CA No.10530 of 2014 decided on 24.11.2014, has held that the purpose of Rule-21 of Rule-9 of the Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 was to afford an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him. In the present case the applicant has been totally denied the said opportunity. It is seen that the trap was not conducted in terms of Manual. The Inquiry Officer did not comply with sub-rule-21 of Rule 9 of the Rules. Thus, it is as clear that the statutory requirement has not been complied with by the respondents. 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. This Tribunal is entitled to arrive at its own conclusion that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, and does not meet the requirements of standard of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. Gross violation of Rule 9(2), 9(6), and 9(21) of the RSDA Rules is evident from Annexure A/13 i.e., vigilance letter dated 28.02.2011. The Disciplinary Authority and Page 4 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 Inquiry Officer ignored the evidence given by the accused/applicant (Page 41-43). The applicant was not guilty of charges and the inquiry report, chargesheet and impugned order is based on perverse findings. The inquiring authority, after the closure of case, has not questioned the applicant on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the applicant to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him which is mandatory and hence the inquiry proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. The complaint was made against Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, but as he could not be traced so the false case was registered against the present applicant who is Vinod Kumar Rajak. The impugned orders are based on no evidence. The punishment awarded is excessive, shocking and disproportionate. The cumulative effect of illegalities/irregularities committed by the concerned authorities while dealing with departmental enquiry against the applicant completely vitiates the said proceeding.
3. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that the applicant, while working as Head Clerk (P) under SSE (TRD) DMO was served with a Major penalty Charge Memorandum dated 29.4.2009 by DPO/JBP on the charge of demanding and accepting an illegal gratification on 06.01.2009 from a railway employee Shri Ali Page 5 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 Jafar. Applicant denied the charges, therefore, a regular departmental inquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority who nominated Shri J.R. Kothari as inquiry officer. Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 13.10.2010 wherein charge leveled against him was proved. A copy of report was supplied to him for making representation against it before passing final order. After considering his defence statement dated 30.01.2010, Disciplinary Authority i.e. DPO/JBP imposed a penalty of reduction to lower scale from pay scale Rs.9,300-34,800/- GP 4,200 to pay scale of Rs.5,200-20,200/ GP. 2800/- by fixing his pay at Rs.13,500/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect on 03.02.2011. Thereafter on suo moto revision, he was issued a show cause notice dated 28.06.2011 with a view to enhancement of the penalty imposed on him and proposed to impose a penalty of removal from service. After considering his defence statement dated 07.07.2011, suo moto Revising Authority i.e. ADRM/JBP imposed the proposed penalty i.e. Removal from Service on 15.11.2011. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 02.01.2012 to the Appellate Authority requesting to set aside the orders passed suo- moto by Revising/Disciplinary authority i.e. ADRM, JBP. In the instant case, the Appellate/Revision Authority i.e. Chief Personnel Officer, WCR is empowered to entertain an appeal in terms of Rule 18(iii) and 19(ii) of RS(D&A) Riles 1968. In continuation, Appellate Page 6 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 Authority i.e. CPO WCR, JBP gave a chance to the applicant to attend the personal hearing on 13.03.2012. On consideration of his appeal, it reduced the penalty imposed on him from "Removal from Railway Service" to "Compulsory Retirement with 20% pension reduction for five years which was communicated to him vide R.A. Le. CPO/ WCR/ JBP's order No.JBP/P/424/01/TDR/VKM dated 19.04.2012. His representation on every occasion was considered by the competent authority and reasoned and speaking orders were passed. It is also submitted that the present case is a case for accepting illegal gratification from a poor employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various authoritative pronouncements has analyzed the scope of judicial inference in the similar matters.
4. This Tribunal has considered the matter and perused the documents annexed herewith the Original Application. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the parties are also taken into consideration.
5. We are conscious of the fact that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over and above the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and also cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry. But, at the same time, if the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence or the finding is perverse, this Page 7 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 Tribunal may exercise its power of judicial review. In the matter of Chatrapal vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 15.02.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that;
"12. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered as held in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu. In P. Gunasekaran (supra), the following has been held by this Court in para nos. 12 & 16:
"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;
(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 considerations; or extraneous
(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;Page 8 of 16
O.A.No. 200/00469/2013
(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.
(emphasis supplied)
6. The sole charge against the applicant is regarding accepting of an illegal gratification of Rs.100/- from a Railway employee Shri Ali Jafar. Learned counsel for the applicant brought our attention to complaint dated 01.01.2009 made by Shri Ali Jafar in which he has referred the name of one Shri Vinod Kushwaha and not the present applicant, who is Vinod Rajak and hence the applicant is falsely implicated, as contended by the applicant's counsel.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that it is a case of preplanned trap as the complainant had admitted the fact that he had previously made two three attempts to trap the applicant. In this regard he read out certain extracts of the defence report (Annexure A-8), which, inter alia, read as under:
"vkjksfir deZpkjh ds vuqlkj mlus " शdk;rdrkZ ls dHkh Hkh fj"or dh eakx ugha dh u gh fjशor ् yh A fशdk;rdrkZ ds U;k;ky; ds vkns"kksa dh tkudkjh iwoZ esa gh ns nh x;h Fkh ds bl laca/k esa iSls eakxus dk vkSfpR; ugha gSa] fशdk;rdrkZ iwokxzg ls xzflr Fkk tks blh rF; ls Li'V gksrk gS fd deZpkjh dks Qlkus gsrq ckj&ckj dksfशश" dj jgk Fkk A fशdk;r drkZ dks U;k;ky; vknsश"k ds rgr ,oa vf/kd osru Hkqxrku ds rgr tks Hkh dVkSrh dh tk jgha og vkjksfir deZpkjh }kjk gh dh tk jgh Fkh mls ;r xyr Qgeh Fkh fd mlds yM+ds dks vkokjkxnhZ ,oa cqjh vknrksa "kkfey djus dk ftEesnkj vkjksfir deZpkjh gh gSa] bl gsrq cnyk Page 9 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 ysus ds fu;r ls og ijiap jpk D;ksafd mls ekyqe Fkk fd pk; iku ds Bsys ds :i;s nsus gSa pWwafd og vkjksfir deZpkjh ds lkFk Hkh pk; iku ds fy;s Bsys ij tkrk Fkk A dfFkr 100 :i;s ;g ekudj fd Bsys ds ysus ds fy;s fn;s x;s rFkk lrdrkZ foHkkx ds deZpkjh }kjk iwaNus ij Lor% 100@& fcuk fdlh vkuk dkuh ds okil dj fn;s A vkjksifr deZpkjh ds ikl ls fशdk;rdrkZ }kjk :i;s 100@& izkIr gq;s og fj वत ds ugha Fks og pk; iku ds Bsys ds m/kkjh ds Fks A dksbZ lk{; ugha ftlls og fl) gks lds fd vkjksfir deZpkfj;ksa us dHkh Hkh fdlh dk;Z ds fy;s :Ik;s dh eakx dh Fkh A
8. Even the complainant has himself admitted this fact that he had previously made three attempts to trap the applicant. In this regard, the statement made by the complainant before the Inquiry Officer reads as under:
"iz-la- 23 vkids dFkukuqlkj vkjksfir deZpkjh ds fo:) rhu ckj Nkis dh ;kstuk cukbZ xbZ Fkh A ;g ;kstuk fdldh " शdk;r ij cukbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj dc cukbZ xbZ Fkh?
mRrj gka] rhuska ckj fशdk;r esjs }kjk ekSf[kd :Ik ls dh xbZ Fkh] ijarq ;kstuk lQy ugha gks ikbZ Fkh A"
9. In order to prove perversity in the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which was based on no evidence, learned counsel for the applicant also took us through the statement made by PW-3 and PW- 5, who have also not supported the case of the prosecution. The relevant extracts of the statement made by PW-3 and PW-5 are reproduced below:
"Jh ,u-ih- flag iwoZ eq[; lrdZrk fujh{kd] orZeku esa ,l-oh-vkbZ ihMCY;w&3 dk eq[; ijh{k.k izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk "kq: fd;k x;k A xxx xxx xxx Page 10 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 iz-la- 4 D;k ysu nsu laiUu gksus ds iwoZ vkjksfir deZpkjh ,oa Qfj;knh ds e/; ;fn dksbZ okrkZyki gqvk gS] D;k vkius lquk?
mRrj ugha eSaus ugha lquk A
iz-la- 5 dfFkr ysu nsus tks vkjksfir deZpkhj ,oa Qfj;knh ds e/;
gqvk] D;k vkius ns[kk?
mRrj ugha eSaus ugha ns[kk A
xxx xxx xxx
Jh euh'k egyksfu;k ihMCY;w&5 dk vkjksfir deZpkjh@cpkr lygk }kjk izfr&ijh{k.k izkjaHk% iz-la- 3 fशdk;r feyus ij Vhe xfBr dh xbZ rFkk VSªi djus dh izfdz;k iw.kZ dh xbZ vkSj tc शdk;rdrkZ Lora= xokg lfgr dfFkr :Ik;s nsus vkjksfir deZpkjh ds dejs esa x;k] D;k vki Hkh lkFk esa Fks?
mRrj tc fशdk;rdrkZ Lora= xokg ds lkFk vkjksfir deZpkjh ds
dejs esa x;s rc eSa lkFk esa ugha Fkk A
xxx xxx xxx
10. Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that the entire action has been taken at the behest of the vigilance and even after the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the vigilance was bent upon to impose a major punishment other than awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The letter dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure A-13) addressed by the vigilance branch to the Disciplinary Authority is quoted below:
"ofj- eaMy dkfeZd vf/kdkjh if चम e/; jsy] tcyiqj fo'k;% Jh fouksn dqekj] iz/kku fyfid ¼dk½@tcyiqj dks tkjh nh?kZ "kkfLr vkjksi i= fnuakd 29-04-2009 esa vf/kjksfir "kkfLr ij iqujh{k.k fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA lanHkZ% ea-dk-vf/k-@tcyiqj ,oa vuqशkklu izf/kdkjh ds i= dza- tcy@dk@424@01@VhvkjMh@fo-dq-es- fnuakd 03-02-2011- Page 11 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 &&&& mijksDr fo'k; esa vkidks voxr djk;k tkrk gS fd Jh fouksn dqekj] iz/kku fyfid ¼dk½@tcyiqj dks nh?kZ "kkfLr (Major Penalty) ij vuq"kklu izkf/kdkjh }kjk tks "kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh gS og fotysal esU;wvy ds iWjk 307-11 o Mh,vkj ds fu;e 6 ds rgr i;kZIr ugha gS D;ksafd vf/kjksfir deZpkjh dks Nn~e tWakp (Decoy check) esa idM+k x;k Fkk ,oa tWakp ds nkSjku vkjksi fl) gq, gSaA vr% vuqशाlu izkf/kdkjh }kjk nh xbZ "kkfLr fnuakd 03-02-2011 dks jhfotu ¼Revision½ djkus dh vuqशl ं k dh tkrh gSA vkils vuqjks/k gS fd izdj.k dks l{ke vf/kdkjh ds ikl jhfotu ¼Revision½ gsrq izLrqr djsa A bl dk;kZy; dks Hkh voxr djk;saA"
11. The order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure A-16) passed by the Revisionary Authority clearly is an influential one and appears to be at the dictate of vigilance as the Revisionary Authority taking cognizance of the recommendation of the vigilance note, has enhanced the punishment from reduction to a lower stage by three stages with cumulative effect to removal from service. Although the Appellate Authority had modified the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement from service but the fact remains that the Revisionary Authority had suo motu exercised the power of revision that too at the instance of vigilance branch.
12. This Tribunal had an occasion to deal with a similar case where the punishment was awarded at the dictate of vigilance and while deciding the Original Application No.1240/2018 on 08.01.2024 Page 12 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 (G.P. Khutey vs. Union of India & others), this Tribunal has observed as under:
"11. We also find that the major penalty disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were initiated on the basis of Vigilance Investigation, i.e. preventive check conducted by vigilance and even the punishment order appears to be at the dictate of advice of the vigilance as the document at Annexure A-8 dated 13.11.2014 suggests the fact that the CVC had advised to impose major penalty upon the applicant although the Railway Board recommended for imposition of minor penalty. This issue also came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rajesh Kumar Verma (supra) and taking note of the fact that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner therein was initiated at the dictate of the Vigilance Commission by the Disciplinary Authority, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"21. There is nothing available on record to show that disciplinary authority has applied its mind independently, note-sheets available on record clearly goes to show that based on the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission and draft charge-sheet sent by them, in a mechanical manner, the charge-sheet has been issued to the respondent.
22. In doing so, the Disciplinary authority has not evaluated the statutory provision and there is sufficient enough ground to show that the charge-sheet has been issued in an illegal manner contrary to the requirement of law and if the Tribunal has acted in the manner as indicated hereinabove, we see no error in the matter.
23. We may refer to certain judgments in this regard wherein the principle with regard to consideration to be made by the disciplinary authority and the extent to which the decision can be influenced by an outside authority is considered. The Gujarat High Court in the case of A. K. Roy Choudhry Vs. Union of India and others, 1982 (1) SLR 443 has considered this question and it has been held in the aforesaid judgment by the Indore Bench of this Court that if the mind of the disciplinary authority is shown to be influenced by any Page 13 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 report of the Vigilance Commission, then in such cases, the rules of natural justice are violated.
24. Similarly, in the case of V. Sai Baba Vs. The Bank of Baroda and others, 1994 (6) SLR 240, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered similar questions and places reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Siva Rao Kharjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank, 1991 (2) SLR 784. In the said case of V. Sai Baba (supra), one of the submissions made was that the disciplinary authority consulted the CVC before taking a decision in the matter and the decision of the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment stands vitiated as it is not arrived at independently on application of mind by the disciplinary authority, but he has been guided by and influenced by the advice tendered by the CVC, who is a Senior Officer and General Manager of the Bank. This submission made was considered in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Siva Rao Kharjagi (supra) and it was held that proceedings before the disciplinary authority are quasi judicial in nature and being so it is unrestricted. Even though the Regulations of the Bank contemplate a provision for consultation with the CVC and the Finance Ministry had issued instructions making it obligatory on the part of the bank to consult the CVC in disciplinary matters, it is held that the Supreme Court has struck down such an instruction as being made without jurisdiction and with regard to the Regulation it was observed by the Supreme Court that when proceedings are held before a disciplinary authority and when they are quasi judicial in nature even though some advice may be tendered by the CVO, it is only advisory in nature and is not binding on the Bank. It was held that if the order passed by the disciplinary authority is found to be influenced by the advice tendered by the CVO and the disciplinary authority was fettered by the advice tendered by the CVO, it was held to be illegal. It is observed in this judgment that once the disciplinary inquiry commences, it assumes a quasi judicial character and it should be proceeded with, uninfluenced by any other authority and the disciplinary authority should be left free to come to its own conclusion without there being any advice by any other authority. It was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the said judgment that the consultation with the CVO contemplated in the Regulations refers to a stage prior Page 14 of 16 O.A.No. 200/00469/2013 to the commencement of the proceedings, but once the proceedings are commenced till they are concluded the quasi judicial nature has to be undertaken independently by the disciplinary authority and it cannot be influenced by any other advice.
25. In the case of UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. Padam Chand Jain, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 655, the advice tendered by an Accounts Officer, which influenced the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment was held to be illegal. Similarly, in the case of Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1980 SC 1170, the question of disciplinary authority arriving at a conclusion based on consultation with the Vigilance Commissioner was taken note of. Even though in that case the question involved was as to whether the delinquent employee was entitled to certain recommendations by the Vigilance Commissioner, which was relied upon by the inquiry officer, while considering the said question the following observations were made by the Supreme Court:
"....... We think that if the disciplinary authority arrived at its own conclusion on the material available to it, its findings and decision cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality merely because the disciplinary authority consulted the Vigilance Commissioner and obtained his views on the very same material. ......."
26. This clearly indicates that if the disciplinary authority takes a decision on its own conclusion, on the material available with him and if his decision is not influenced by the advice of the CVC, there is no illegality. But, if the consultation with the CVC has influenced the decision, the inevitable conclusion would be that the punishment imposed is vitiated.
27. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that as the departmental enquiry against the respondent is initiated by the disciplinary authority in a manner which is not permissible under law and as departmental proceedings are initiated at the dictate of the Vigilance Commission by the disciplinary authority in the manner which is not contemplated under the rules, in quashing the charge-sheet, for the reasons indicated in the order, the Tribunal has not committed any error." Page 15 of 16
O.A.No. 200/00469/2013
13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it is a case of no evidence as the evidences and the documents produced during the enquiry do not support the charges and the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. Regarding the enhanced punishment awarded by the Revisionary Authority on the advice of the vigilance branch, we are fortified by our decision given in a similar matter in the case of G.P. Khutey (supra). Thus, keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Chatrapal (supra) as also our order passed in the case of G.P. Khutey (supra), the orders passed by all the authorities viz; Disciplinary Authority, Revisionary Authority and Appellate Authority are not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. We order accordingly. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by us in the preceding paragraphs. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 16 of 16