Dashrat h Singh Rana - Pet it ioner v. Union of I ndia and ot hers

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i )

1. Pet it ioner challenged j udgm ent dat ed

22.05.2013, rendered by Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal in O.A. No. 1889 of 2010 ( U) . By t he said j udgm ent , original applicat ion filed by pet it ioner challenging order passed by disciplinary aut horit y as

affirm ed by appellat e aut horit y, was dism issed.

2. I t is not in disput e t hat pet it ioner was post ed as Officiat ing Deputy Post m ast er in General Post Office, Haldwani ( Nainit al) from 01.01.2002 t o 31.08.2002. During said period, a huge am ount of m oney was siphoned off from t he R.D. account s of deposit ors. A charge- sheet was issued t o t he pet it ioner and enquiry was held. Based on t he findings ret urned by Enquiry Officer, pet it ioner was dism issed from service by t he Direct or of Post al Services, vide order dat ed

19.07.2007.

3. Pet it ioner preferred depart m ent al appeal challenging t he dism issal order. His appeal was part ly 1 allowed and t he punishm ent of dism issal was m odified t o t hat of reduct ion in rank and he was direct ed t o be reinst at ed vide order dat ed 27.03.2008, passed by Chief Post m ast er General, Ut t arakhand Circle, Dehradun.

4. Pet it ioner t hereaft er approached Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, challenging order passed by disciplinary aut horit y and also t he appellat e aut horit y. Learned Tribunal dism issed his Original Applicat ion vide j udgm ent dat ed 14.05.2013. Thus, feeling aggrieved, pet it ioner has approached t his Court , challenging j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal. He has also challenged t he orders passed by disciplinary aut horit y and t he appellat e aut horit y.

5. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel appearing for t he respondent s is right in subm it t ing t hat since t he order passed by appellat e aut horit y has m erged in t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal, t herefore, it cannot be independent ly challenged in t his pet it ion.

6. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat pet it ioner was not given reasonable opport unit y t o defend him self during t he course of enquiry. He subm it s t hat at t he st age of inspect ion of docum ent s, he was given docum ent s which were not legible; wit nesses did not direct ly support t he charge; none of t he deposit ors m ade any com plaint regarding wrong paym ent ; no independent wit nesses was produced before enquiry officer; t wo depart m ent al wit nesses st at ed before t he enquiry officer t hat t here is no direct evidence against t he applicant and regarding charge 2 no. 3, it was st at ed t hat fraud was com m it t ed in 2001 when applicant was not post ed at Haldwani Post Office; t he orders passed by disciplinary aut horit y and t he appellat e aut horit y are non- speaking and were passed wit hout considering full fact s and t he charge- sheet was vague.

7. We have gone t hrough t he im pugned j udgm ent . Learned Tribunal has held t hat alt hough t he prim ary responsibilit y for m isappropriat ion of m oney was of Mr. M.C. Suyal, however, pet it ioner, who was working in supervisory capacit y, failed t o exercise adequat e supervision and cont rol over Mr. M.C. Suyal, as per t he provision cont ained in Post Office Manual.

8. I t furt her reveals t hat Enquiry Officer held charge num ber 1 and 5 as not proved, but charge num ber 2, 3 & 4 were found t o be proved. Learned Tribunal has held t hat pet it ioner ’s allegat ion t hat cert ain docum ent s were not legible relat es t o prelim inary enquiry and pet it ioner has not alleged t hat he was not allowed full access t o all docum ent s as m ent ioned in t he charge- sheet . I f t he docum ent s were not legible, t hen pet it ioner could have request ed for legible copies of t he docum ent s. There is no averm ent t hat pet it ioner m ade such a request .

9. Degree of proof in a depart m ent al enquiry is different from a crim inal t rial. I n a depart m ent al enquiry, an em ployee can be punished based on preponderance of evidence while in crim inal t rial, charge has t o be proved beyond reasonable doubt for punishing som eone. I t is not t he case of pet it ioner t hat enquiry report is based on no evidence. Adm it t edly, 3 enquiry was held as per norm s.

10. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of H i g h Co u r t o f Ju d i ca t u r e a t Bo m b a y t h r o u g h i t s Re g i st r a r Vs. Sh a sh i k a n t S. Pa t i l a n d a n o t h e r report ed in 2 0 0 0 ( 1 ) SCC 4 1 6 has held t hat int erference wit h t he decision of depart m ent al aut horit ies can be perm it t ed, while exercising j urisdict ion under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion, if such aut horit y had held proceedings in violat ion of t he principles of nat ural j ust ice or violat ion of st at ut ory regulat ions prescribing t he m ode of such enquiry or if t he decision of t he aut horit y is vit iat ed by considerat ions ext raneous t o t he evidence and m erit s of t he case, or if t he conclusion m ade by t he aut horit y, on t he very face of it , is wholly arbit rary or capricious t hat no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very sim ilar t o t he above.

11. I t was furt her held t hat t he set t led legal posit ion is t hat if t here is som e legal evidence on which t he findings can be based, t hen adequacy or even reliabilit y of t hat evidence is not a m at t er for canvassing before t he High Court in a writ pet it ion filed under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion.

12. I n t he case of St a t e o f A .P. Vs. S. Sr e e Ra m a Ra o , report ed in A I R 1 9 6 3 SC 1 7 2 3 , Hon’ble Suprem e Court held t hat “ t he High Court is not const it ut ed in a proceeding under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion as a court of appeal over t he decision of t he aut horit ies holding a depart m ent al enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned t o det erm ine whet her 4 t he enquiry is held by an aut horit y com pet ent in t hat behalf, and according t o t he procedure prescribed in t hat behalf, and whet her t he rules of nat ural j ust ice are not violat ed. Whet her t here is som e evidence, which t he aut horit y ent rust ed wit h t he dut y t o hold t he enquiry has accept ed and which evidence m ay reasonably support t he conclusion t hat t he delinquent officer is guilt y of t he charge, it is not t he funct ion of t he High Court in a pet it ion for a writ under Art icle 226 t o review t he evidence and t o arrive at an independent finding on t he evidence.”

13. I n t he case of B.C. Ch a t u r v e d i Vs. Un i o n o f I n d i a a n d Or s., report ed in ( 1 9 9 5 ) 6 SCC 7 4 9 , Hon’ble Suprem e Court considered and discussed t he scope of j udicial review of a punishm ent order. Para 12, 13 and 14 of t he said j udgm ent are ext ract ed below: t o ensure t reat m ent and not t he aut horit y reaches “ 1 2 . Judicial review is not an appeal fr om a decision but a review of t he m anner in which t he decision is m ade. Power of j udicial review is m eant t o ensure t hat t he individual t hat receives t he is necessarily conclusion which inquiry correct in t he eye of t he court . When an conduct ed on charges of m isconduct by a public servant , t he Court / Tribunal is concerned t o det erm ine whet her t he inquiry was held by a com pet ent officer or whet her rules of nat ural j ust ice are com plied w it h. Whet her t he findings or conclusions are based on som e evidence, t he aut horit y ent rust ed wit h t he power t o hold inquiry has j urisdict ion, fact or power and aut horit y conclusion. But t hat finding m ust be based on som e evidence. Neit her t he t echnical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined t herein, apply t o disciplinary proceeding. When t he aut horit y accept s t hat evidence and conclusion receives support t herefrom , t he disciplinary aut horit y is ent it led t o hold t hat t he delinquent officer is guilt y of t he charge. The Court / Tribunal in it s power of j udicial review does not act as appellat e aut horit y t o reappreciat e t he evidence and t o arrive at it s own independent findings on t he evidence. The Court / Tribunal m ay int erfere where t he aut horit y held t he proceedings against t he delinquent officer in a m anner inconsist ent w it h t he rules of nat ural j ust ice or in violat ion of st at ut ory rules prescribing t he m ode of inquiry or wher e t he conclusion or finding of reach a t o 5 finding reached by t he disciplinary aut horit y is based on no evidence. I f t he conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever t he Court / Tribunal m ay int erfere wit h t he conclusion or t he finding, and m ould t he relief so as t o m ake it appropriat e t o t he fact s of each case. reached, relevant . Adequacy of evidence or 1 3 . The disciplinary aut horit y is t he sole j udge of fact s. Where appeal is present ed, t he appellat e aut horit y has coext ensive power t o reappreciat e t he evidence or t he nat ure of punishm ent . I n a disciplinary inquiry, t he st rict proof of legal evidence and findings on t hat evidence are reliabilit y of evidence cannot be perm it t ed t o be canvassed before t he Court / Tribunal. I n Union of I ndia v. H.C. Goel [ ( 1964) 4 SCR 718 : AI R 1964 SC 364 : ( 1964) 1 LLJ 38] t his Court held at p. 728 t hat if t he conclusion, upon considerat ion of t he evidence reached by t he disciplinary aut horit y, is perverse or suffers from pat ent error on t he face of t he record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of cert iorari could be issued. 1 4 . I n Union of I ndia v. S.L. Abbas [ ( 1993) 4 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC ( L&S) 230 : ( 1993) 25 ATC 844] when t he order of t ransfer was int erfered wit h by t he Tribunal, t his Court held t hat t he Tribunal was not an appellat e aut horit y w hich could subst it ut e it s own j udgm ent t o t hat bona fide order of t ransfer. The Tribunal could not , in such circum st ances, int erfere wit h orders of t ransfer of a governm ent servant . I n Adm inist rat or of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora [ 1993 Supp ( 1) SCC 551 : 1993 SCC ( L&S) 281 : ( 1993) 23 ATC 672] it was held t hat t he Adm inist rat ive Tribunal was not an appellat e aut horit y and it could not subst it ut e t he role of aut horit ies t o clear t he efficiency bar in St at e Bank of of a public I ndia v. Sam arendra Kishore Endow [ ( 1994) 2 SCC 537 : 1994 SCC ( L&S) 687 : ( 1994) 27 ATC 149 : JT ( 1994) 1 SC 217] a Bench of t his Court of which t wo of us ( B.P. Jeevan Reddy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were m em bers, considered t he order of t he Tribunal, which quashed t he charges as based on no evidence, went in det ail int o t he t o quest ion as appreciat e t he evidence while exercising power of j udicial review and held t hat a t r ibunal could not appreciat e t he evidence and subst it ut e it s own conclusion t o t hat of t he disciplinary aut horit y. I t would, t herefore, be clear t hat t he Tribunal cannot em bark upon appreciat ion of evidence t o subst it ut e t hat of a findings of it s ow n disciplinary/ appellat e aut horit y.” t he Tribunal had power servant . Recent ly, t o w het her t o

14. We concur wit h t he view t aken by learned Tribunal. The punishm ent t o be im posed upon an em ployee is exclusively wit hin t he dom ain of 6 disciplinary aut horit y and t he appellat e aut horit y has coext ensive power t o re appreciat e t he evidence or t o m odify t he punishm ent order. I n a depart m ent al enquiry, adequacy of evidence or reliabilit y of evidence cannot be perm it t ed t o be canvassed before t he Court / Tribunal.

15. I n t he case in hand, Appellat e aut horit y reduced t he penalt y on t he ground t hat Mr. M.C. Suyal, who was t he co- accused and was suspect ed t o be t he prim ary offender, could not be subj ect ed t o disciplinary enquiry due t o his deat h. The Appellat e Aut horit y also t ook int o account t he fam ily circum st ances of t he pet it ioner for reducing t he penalt y im posed upon him .

16. Thus, learned Tribunal was j ust ified in not int erfering wit h t he punishm ent as m odified by appellat e aut horit y.

17. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference in t he im pugned j udgm ent . The writ pet it ion fails and dism issed. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. ____________________________ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 6 t h August , 2025 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08 923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA 4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 7