Suprem e Court in t he case of B.C. Ch a t u r v e d i vs Tribunal cannot norm ally subst it ut e it s own conclusion

Pet it ioner has challenged j udgm ent dat ed

23.04.2019 rendered by Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal Allahabad Bench ( Circuit Bench at Nainit al) in O.A. No.331/ 00727/ 2017. By t he said j udgm ent , pet it ioner’s challenge t o punishm ent of 5% deduct ion from his pension for one year was rej ect ed.

2. At t he t im e of his ret irem ent on 31.10.2011, pet it ioner was serving as Deput y General Manager, Finance & Account s in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lim it ed at Bareilly. Before his ret irem ent , a show cause not ice was issued t o him t o which he replied on 15.03.2011. His reply was not found t o be sat isfact ory and pet it ioner was put under suspension vide order dat ed 28.10.2011 and t hereaft er, a charge- sheet was issued t o him on

06.06.2012. Pet it ioner subm it t ed reply t o t he charge- 1 sheet and t hereaft er, an inquiry was conduct ed. The I nquiry Officer subm it t ed his report and based on t he report , t he Disciplinary Aut horit y/ Direct or H.R. im posed punishm ent of 5% deduct ion from his pension for a period of one year.

3. Pet it ioner filed depart m ent al appeal against punishm ent order, which was dism issed by t he Appellat e Aut horit y. Pet it ioner t hereaft er, approached Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal challenging punishm ent order and also order passed by Appellat e Aut horit y. Learned Tribunal rej ect ed t he challenge t o punishm ent order and appellat e aut horit y’s order vide j udgm ent dat ed 23.04.2019 which is under challenge in t his pet it ion.

4. Heard learned counsel for part ies and perused t he record.

5. Learned Tribunal considered discussed t he m at t er in great det ail. The challenge t hrown by pet it ioner was repelled on t he ground t hat pet it ioner has not alleged any procedural lapses on t he part of depart m ent al aut horit y while holding t he inquiry. Pet it ioner cont ended before t he Tribunal t hat he has been held responsible wrongly and he had no role t o play in t he incident , which lead t o issuance of charge- sheet .

6. Learned Tribunal dealt wit h t he said aspect by relying on t he j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in 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 & Ot h e r s report ed in 1 9 9 5 ( 6 ) SCC 7 4 9 in which Hon’ble Apex Court held t hat while 2 exercising power of j udicial review, t he High Court or Tribunal cannot norm ally subst it ut e it s own conclusion on penalt y and im pose som e ot her penalt y and int erference wit h punishm ent order can be m ade only when punishm ent is shockingly disproport ionat e t o nat ure and gravit y of charges.

7. Before us also learned counsel for pet it ioner challenged punishm ent on m erit and not on procedural im propriet y or violat ion of rule. Scope of j udicial review is very lim it ed in disciplinary m at t ers. The disciplinary inquiry was held as per laid down procedure and t here was no allegat ion t hat pet it ioner was not given reasonable opport unit y of hearing.

8. There is no allegat ion t hat t he finding ret urned by t he I nquiry Officer is perverse or based on no evidence. I n such view of t he m at t er, we do not find any perversit y in t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal. The pet it ion fails and t he sam e is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 13.08.2025 SS SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129 a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B 7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH 3