Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hom Karan vs Govt. Of Nctd on 21 May, 2025
Item No. 18/C-2 1 OA No. 733/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 733/2020
Reserved on: 09.05.2025
Pronounced on: 21.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Hom Karan (Group "B")
Retd. Ad hoc DANICS/VATO
Aged about 53 Years
S/o Late Sh. Chiranji Lal
R/o. A/11-B, DDA Flats, Sarai Basti,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-35
.....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Raj Bhawan, Delhi
2. Govt. NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
3. Commissioner
Trade & Taxes, Vyapaar Bhawan
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Sameer Sharma)
RAVI 2025.05.26
KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30'
Item No. 18/C-2 2 OA No. 733/2020
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"1. To quash and set aside the Impugned Memorandum dt. 20.4.2016, Inquiry Report dt.13.4.2017, Order of Punishment dt. 3.5.2018 and Appellate Order dt. 28.11.2019 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc.
2. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant who was holding the post of ad hoc DANICS/VATO in the office of the respondent, i.e., Enforcement-II Branch, he was issued a charge sheet vide Memorandum dated 26.4.2016 (Annexure A-1), which consists of seven articles of charges. The same reads as under:-
"Article-I That the said Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS, while functioning as Assistant Commissioner in Enforcement-II Branch, Trade & Taxes Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi during the year 2014, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to prepare proper detention order as well as the stock inventory of the detained/seized goods/articles on 01/03/2014 at Old Delhi Railway Station.
Thus, by the aforesaid act of omission & commission, Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, and is RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 3 OA No. 733/2020 violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II That the said Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS, while working on the aforesaid post and during the aforesaid period, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to ensure safe keeping of detained/seized valuable goods/articles, worth crores of rupees, resulting in their theft/misappropriation.
Thus, by the aforesaid act of omission & commission, Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, and is violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III That the said Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DÀNICS, while working on the aforesaid post and during the aforesaid period, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to recommend for reporting the detention/seizure of valuable goods/articles, worth crores of rupees, to the Income Tax Authorities, Customs, Enforcement Directorate etc. Thus, by the aforesaid act of omission & commission, Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc. DANICS has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, and is violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV That the said Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS, while working on the aforesaid post and during the aforesaid period, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to recommend for informing Election Commission of India regarding the detention/seizure of valuable articles/goods despite the prevalence of Model Code of Conduct on account of General Election- 2014.
Thus, by the aforesaid act of omission & commission, Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, and is violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-V
RAVI 2025.05.26
KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30'
Item No. 18/C-2 4 OA No. 733/2020
That the said Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS, while working on the aforesaid post and during the aforesaid period, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to recommend for engaging Government approved valuer(s) to ascertain the actual value of the valuable detained goods/articles.
Thus, by the aforesaid act of omission & commission, Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, and is violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-VI That the said Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS while working on the aforesaid post and during the aforesaid period, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to verify the genuineness of the claims filed by some persons for the release of detained/seized goods/articles.
Thus, by the aforesaid act of omission & commission, Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoç DANICS has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming ofa Govt. servant, and is violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-VII That the said Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS, while working on the aforesaid post and during the aforesaid period, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to initiate action to locate out the senders of the detained/seized goods/articles as well as the persons who were to receive them.
Thus, by the aforesaid act of omission & commission, Sh. Hom Karan, Ad-hoc DANICS has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, and is violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
The aforesaid Memorandum also includes the statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses by which the aforesaid articles of charges were proposed to be sustained. The applicant submitted his written RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 5 OA No. 733/2020 statement of defence dated 3.8.2016 denied the charges framed against him.
2.1 Thereafter the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 23.9.2016 and after conducting the inquiry in which the applicant had also participated, the IO had submitted his report dated 13.4.2017 (Annexure A-2 although mentioned as Annexure A-3 in the paperbook) returning the findings that all the charges levelled against the applicant as „proved‟.
2.2 Upon receipt of the said IO‟s report, the applicant had submitted his representation dated 21.6.2017 before the Disciplinary Authority, who after considering the contentions of the applicant as raised by him in his aforesaid representation had passed the order dated 3.5.2018 (Annexure A-3) imposing the penalty of "reduction to a lower stage in the time- scale of pay by five stages for a period of five years, with further directions that the Government servant will not earn the increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments".
2.3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant had filed his appeal dated 11.6.2018, which was considered by the Appellate Authority. However, the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure A-4).
RAVI 2025.05.26
KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30'
Item No. 18/C-2 6 OA No. 733/2020
2.4 Hence the present OA preferred by the
applicant seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
SUBMISSION MADE BY APPLICANT'S COUNSEL
3. The applicant was issued a Charge-sheet vide Memorandum dated 26.4 1.2016 (Ann A-1) on 7 articles of charges. In this regard, it is submitted that on 1.3.2014, two enforcement teams of the Enforcement-II Branch, one headed by the applicant on apprehension of Tax Evasion enquired about requisite documents regarding certain goods being transported on Two Hand-driven Thellas on the road between the Old Delhi Railway Station and Chandni Chowk area. The thella-pullers denied having any documents like Invoices etc. and also did not reveal the information about destination. Further, the thella- puller also expressed ignorance about the owner of the goods on the ground that the owner of the goods who was guide the thella-puller but ahead of thella to guide the disappeared on seeing the enforcement team.
3.1 He stated that a mob started to gather around the applicant and his other team members. Therefore, anticipating crisis and when his other colleague and c0-member of the raiding team Joginder Singh, AC (E- II) declined to sign GDOs prepared by VATI Praveen Sharma, the applicant was compelled to put his signatures on both the Detention Orders regarding 24 Cartons in number. Therefore, detention orders regarding goods were issued by the applicant in the RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 7 OA No. 733/2020 name of thella-pullers. Therefore, the first part of Article I is factually wrong and illegal.
3.2 Applicant contended that the details of the seized goods could not be ascertained until the packets are opened for inventory thereof. It was neither possible to prepare the inventory on the running road nor is it the practice of preparing the inventory on the spot. Description of the goods given by Thella-pullers was mixed articles ("Purchuna"). Hence, there was no question arose of mentioning details of the seized goods in GDOs. Therefore, the second part of Article I is factually wrong and illegal.
3.3 He further submitted that one of the pushers ran away from the spot and the other was asked to move with the thellas to the official authorized parking of the Deptt. at I.P. Estate Power House. After covering some distance, the thella-pullers refused to transport the goods to Parking lot at I.P Extension Power House. Therefore, the goods were transported on a hired tempo along with thella-pullers. 24 Cartons were stored in a room in the parking lot and the room was sealed in the presence of the thella-pullers, Sh. Hari Rai and Sandeep. After the sealing process was completed, the thella-pullers were asked to go to the owner of goods and ask them to visit Trade and Taxes department Office along with supporting documents at the time of inventory on 3.3.2014, as 2.3.2014 was holiday. On 3.3.2014 one application from Mr. Raj Kumar was received but no one turned up to claim the goods despite being informed to be present for RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 8 OA No. 733/2020 inventory making. The obligation of approaching the department and getting the goods released after paying the tax entirely lies with the owner/claimant of the goods. The role of the department is restricted to inventory making, assessment and raising of tax demand. Nothing more is required under any law/rule to be done by the Trade and Taxes department.
3.4 Applicant further contended that as per the rules, inventory is required to be prepared in the presence of the owner. However, as no claimant came forward, the senior of the applicant i.e. Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Commissioner, Head of the Enforcement-II Branch, initiated a file for constituting a special committee for inventory making since Mr. Raj Kumar had claimed in his application that goods contains currency notes/metal jewellery etc. Therefore, the second part of Article I is factually wrong and illegal.
3.5 Applicant also contended that a Special Committee headed by Sh. Yogesh Pal Singh, Assistant Commissioner/VATO was constituted after the approval of Commissioner VAT vide Order dated 5.3.2014. On 5.3.2014 the Committee started making inventory of detained goods. The whole process was video-graphed to maintain transparency. The election to Lok-Sabha was also announced on 5.3.2014. Further the letters dated 5/6/8.3.2014 were written to SHO I.P. Estate for providing security as during inventory making presence of some precious items noticed by the team in one of the twenty four cartons.
RAVI 2025.05.26
KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30'
Item No. 18/C-2 9 OA No. 733/2020
Therefore, the Article II is factually wrong and illegal. However, the SHO/IP Estate refused to provide any security. The room in the parking lot was considered unsafe due to precious items found in the detained goods by the seniors of the applicant. Therefore, on 9.3.2014, Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Commissioner, the Head of the Enforcement-II Branch decided to shift the goods to a safer place i.e. 13th Floor of Building of the Department and accordingly goods were shifted there and the room was sealed. This was also informed to the SHO/IP Estate vide letter dt.9.3.2014. Further, Sh. Mukesh Chand Sharma, Assistant Commissioner/VATO headed the Special committee w.e.f.9.3.2014 as per Order dt.8.3.2014 issued by Joint Commissioner. These facts are proved from the Statement of Yogesh Pal Singh (Annexure A-5). Therefore, the Article II is factually wrong and illegal.
3.6 Applicant further stated that the SHO again refused to provide security in writing. Therefore, two private security guards, who were already deployed for Security in the department since security of the Trade and Taxes Buildings was being managed by private security guards provided by the Private Security Agency, were deployed for security and letter was written to SHO IP Estate intimating the same on the verbal directions of Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Commissioner. This was done since the department neither have strong room nor armed guards. The Order dt.9.3.2014 regarding deployment of private security guards was duly signed by Sh. Mukesh RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 10 OA No. 733/2020 Chand Sharma, Assistant Commissioner/VATO who headed the Special Committee as on 9.3.2014. Therefore, the Article II is factually wrong and illegal.
3.7 Applicant also contended that the applicant had personally visited at Delhi Vaults, CP, South Delhi Vault. South Extension, at Greater Kailash, Part-1 and Nazarat Khana. Tis Hazari Courts on verbal directions of Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Commissioner as confirmed by him in his submissions. dt.27.6.2014 before Ms. Archana Arora, IAS. But the applicant did not get any success since they had shown their inability on one ground or the other. These facts were informed to Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Commissioner. These facts are proved from the submissions dt.27.6.2014 (Annexure A-6) before EO by Sh. Ashish Mohan. Therefore, the Article II is factually wrong and illegal.
3.8 Applicant also stated that the safety and security of detained goods is always with the vehicle in charge/owner. This was the first such case where burden of safety and security of the detained goods became responsibility of the department, which was first such experience of the branch with such an eventuality. As per Page 6 & 7 of the Affidavit dt.31.8.2015 in WP No.3799/ 14 filed by the department, no malafide is attributable to any official of the department in the theft. Further, all officials including Commissioner, VAT tried to solve the issue of safety of detained goods with due diligence but because of non-existing support system and lack of RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 11 OA No. 733/2020 infrastructure made the detained goods unsafe and some part of the goods were stolen. Therefore, the Article II is factually wrong and illegal.
3.9 Applicant further stated that after inventory making was over, on 19.3.2014 a fresh committee for assessment/valuation of detained goods was constituted with approval of Commissioner VAT. The valuation/assessment committee submitted its report dt.28.3.2014 and recommended for the appointment of an independent valuer. These facts are proved from the letter dt.30.6.2014 (Annexure A-7) written by Sh. V. K. Tripathi. Further, on 28.3.2014 itself the recommendation for the appointment of independent valuer was placed before Joint Commissioner VAT (Enforcement-I) Sh. V. K. Tripathi who approved the recommendation. Further one Sh. Anmol Jain, a Govt. approved Valuer was called and after deliberations. On 19.4.2014 Sh. V. K. Tripathi sent the file for approval of the Commissioner/VAT. Therefore, the Article V is factually wrong and illegal.
3.10 Applicant stated that on 20.5.2014, the Commissioner/VAT approved engagement of Sh. Anmol Jain and allowed him to assess the value of the seized articles. However, by that time theft of some of the detained goods had already taken place allegedly on 10.5.2014 for which the applicant got registered an FIR. Therefore, the Article V is factually wrong and illegal. Further the whole operation of deployment of teams headed by the applicant and Sh. Joginder Singh, detention of goods, bringing the detained goods RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 12 OA No. 733/2020 to Trade and Taxes department, inventory making, appointment of Govt. Approver Valuer and shifting of detained goods was by Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Commissioner and/or within his knowledge and supervision being Head of the Enforcement Branch-II who kept all his seniors like Special commissioner, VAT and Commissioner, VAT informed about the proceedings taking place. Therefore, there was no question of the applicant recommending for informing the other authorities/agencies as alleged in Articles III and IV. Further it is admitted fact that Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Commissioner himself submitted before Ms. Archana Arora, IAS that a conscious decision was taken in consultation with Special Commissioner and Commissioner, VAT that such information need not be shared with other agencies as there is no provision in DVAT Act in this regard. Therefore, there was no question of the applicant recommending for informing the other authorities/agencies as alleged in Article III and IV. Therefore, the Articles III and IV are factually wrong and illegal.
3.11 He also stated that even if, for the sake of arguments, information to other authorities/agencies was required to be sent, the same was not subject to recommendations being made by the applicant as is clear from the fact that all the higher authorities were well aware of all the proceedings taking place with respect to detention of goods on 1.3.2014. Till date the department has failed to verify the genuineness of the claims for release of detained goods on 1.3.2014 as RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 13 OA No. 733/2020 alleged in Article VI and locate out the sender of detained goods as well as persons who were to receive them as alleged in Article VII despite repeated directions by the High Court of Delhi in WP No.3799/14 vide Judgment dt. 12.2.2016 and WP No.9308/18 vide Judgment dt.3.7.2019. Therefore, these two charges are in themselves factually wrong and illegal. The applicant has come to know all above- mentioned facts the documents supplied with the Charge-sheet, the pleading and documents submitted by the department in the High Court of Delhi, Reports of the various Committees and documents obtained through RTIs. A copy of Report dt.25.08.2014, Comments dt.3.12.2014, Counter Affidavit in WP No.3799/14, Affidavit dt.31.8.2015 in WP No.3799/ 14 and Judgment dt. 12.2.2016 (Annexures A-8 to A-
12) respectively.
3.12 On the strength of above submissions, learned counsel argued that the charge-sheet is not in conformity with law; charges levelled against the applicant discloses bias or pre-judgment of the guilt of the applicant; total non application of mind in issuing the charge-sheet; rather chagesheet does not disclose any misconduct against the applicant; and charges are vague and lacking material particulars as there are no specific facts given as to the date, time and place where the demand was made for money and it was accepted in the summary of allegations. It was argued that since the charges levelled against the applicant are totally vague, unclear and unspecific as RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 14 OA No. 733/2020 no specific act of the applicant has been assigned or quoted which can be termed as misconduct and therefore, the applicant could not properly defend himself nor were the alleged charges such, which could be defended by anybody. According to the learned counsel, the principles of natural justice require that charges must be specific so that delinquent could defend the same. It is stated that in the findings of guilt, nothing has been pin-poined against the applicant as to what allegations are proved and as to how the applicant is liable. Rather, the applicant had been held guilty for the acts of others without discussing and taking into consideration the defence statement of the applicant and punished him. In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of NCT Of Delhi, reported in 2007 (4) SCC 566 wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held "Misconduct means, misconduct arising from, ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct." As such according to the learned counsel, the conduct of the applicant in the present case does not amount to misconduct requiring any punishment against him. It is further argued that the Appellate Authority did not consider applicant's appeal at all and had rejected the same in a mechanical manner without application of mind.
RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 15 OA No. 733/2020 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENTS
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply in which they have denied the claim of the applicant and have submitted that the charges levelled against the applicant are framed in accordance with the facts of the case and relevant record, after due application of mind and after considering preliminary enquiry report submitted by the then Pr. Secretary (Home), GNCTD. Further the inquiry was conducted as per relevant rules/guidelines in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant was granted ample opportunities to defend his case including examination/cross- examination -of witnesses/evidences at very stages of inquiry proceedings and after considering the evidences and brief filed by him, Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry proving all the articles of charges against the applicant.
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the disciplinary authority with due consideration of the applicant's defence and material available on record had passed a detailed speaking and well reasoned order and imposed penalty which is commensurate to the misconduct committed by the applicant. Further the appellate authority too after considering the material available on record and submissions of the applicant had rejected the same as no fresh evidence had been brought on record, which were not available during the proceedings and can alter the decision of the disciplinary authority.
RAVI 2025.05.26
KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30'
Item No. 18/C-2 16 OA No. 733/2020
Further, the applicant has miserably failed to show that the impugned orders were suffering from any infirmity.
4.2 Learned counsel vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 03.05.2018 is a detailed order whereby all the contentions of the applicants were duly considered -by the Disciplinary Authority. The Applicant failed to justify for allowing the Thellas- pullers to go away without ascertaining from them as to who had engaged them and where were the items being taken to, who was paying for the labour and such other relevant information which would have led to the owners of the said items who could have been dealt with as per law. No pro-active efforts were made by the Applicant to ascertain ownership of the seized goods or for swift follow up in relation to the claim filed by some private persons for release of the goods. Applicant further failed to give any convincing reply as to the delay in making the actual inventory of the items. The items were seized on 01.03.2014 and the inventory of the items was only made on 05.03.2014. Applicant failed to induce any evidence to show that he had done what was within his means for getting the valuation done in time. It was applicant's responsibility to ensure that the said documents were proper. After considering these facts and circumstances, inter alia, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of "reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by five stages for a period of five years, with further directions that the Government RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 17 OA No. 733/2020 servant will not earn the increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments under rule 11 of the said Rules,"
upon applicant. Hence, the punishment orders are detailed speaking orders and do not indicate any summary or casual approach in considering the facts of the case.
4.3 Learned counsel further argued that the judgment relied upon by the Applicant is not applicable in the present case as it is settled law that the role of the Tribunal is limited in disciplinary matters. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M. Lad, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 775 also held as under:-
"13. The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority, and/or on appeal the Appellate Authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the Court/ Tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 18 OA No. 733/2020 Court or a Tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts..."
As such it is settled law that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to van consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The Hon'ble Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.
REBUTTAL TO THE RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS
5. In reply to the submissions of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant denied the contents of the reply and reiterated the submissions as noted above. In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the following decisions as well:-
(i) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik in Civil Appeal No. 13834 of 2024 decided on 14.2.2025;
(ii) Harish Kumar Laxmanbhai & Co. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr., reported in 263 (2019) DELHI LAW TIMES 742 (DB); and
(iii) The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sri Gangana in WP No.24370 RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 19 OA No. 733/2020 of 2019 (L-KSRTC) decided on 13.09.2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karrnataka at Bangaluru.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.
ANALYSIS
7. Since this matter pertains to departmental proceedings, we deem it apt to observe that it is settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review. The Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
7.1 In this regard, it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals, the Three RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 20 OA No. 733/2020 Judges Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
(emphasis supplied) 7.2 In another case in the matter of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that while re- appreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
RAVI 2025.05.26
KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30'
Item No. 18/C-2 21 OA No. 733/2020
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
7.3 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457, by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:-
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority............"
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v.
Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103] .
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 22 OA No. 733/2020 itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry 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 or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
(emphasis supplied)
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 23 OA No. 733/2020 delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
(emphasis supplied) 7.4 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563:
(2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasised about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 24 OA No. 733/2020 forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and
(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
8. By keeping in mind the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted hereinabove, we have perused the IO‟s report as well as orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate authorities. We find that this case cannot be said to be a case of „no evidence‟, as also the charges cannot be said to be vague. The findings returned by the IO in its report cannot be said to be wholly perverse. Rather, we find that there was/were no irregularities in decision-making process by the authorities of the respondents. Further this Tribunal while exercising the judicial review is not empowered to re-appreciate the evidence. Further the applicant has failed to show that there was any violation of principles of natural justice while holding/completing the departmental proceedings initiated against him. So far as the plea of the applicant that the aforementioned penalty imposed RAVI 2025.05.26 KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30' Item No. 18/C-2 25 OA No. 733/2020 upon the applicant is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the applicant is concerned, although it is trite law that interference in the matter of award of punishment is required in a case where the Court/Tribunal is of the opinion that the same is shockingly disproportionate punishment, however, in our considered view, the said punishment awarded to the applicant cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. Further the reliance placed by the applicant on the above mentioned judgments are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case being distinguishable of facts.
9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the instant OA. Accordingly, the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
RAVI 2025.05.26
KANOJIA 12:54:10+05'30'