Central Institute Of Research On Goats vs Union Of India Through

S.N.Terdal, J

We have heard Mr. V.K.Sharma, counsel for applicant and Mr. Rajat Krishna for Mr. Rajeev Sharma, counsel for respondents, perused the documents and all the documents produced by both the parties.

In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a). That applicant is due to retire on 31.01.2016 on superannuation, whereas, penalty of withholding increment for 5 years (Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2) itself stand invalid after date of retirement of the applicant much before 5 years duration. The penalty is thus not workable and has been passed over-looking service record of the applicant.

(b). That Impugned Order dt.20.06.2012 (Annexure A-1) imposing punishment of withholding one increment of pay for 5 years with cumulative effect on the applicant by an officer other than the competent Disciplinary Authority without proper inquiry and in violation of rules and regulations and without any charge proved against the applicant, may kindly be ordered to be set-aside and quashed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in order to meet the ends of justice.

(c) That order dt. 21.01.2013 (Annexure A-2) of the Reviewing Authority thereby rejecting Review Petition of the applicant also suffering from the same very infirmities and not in conformity with rules and relevant guidelines may also kindly be ordered to be set-aside and quashed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

(d) That the purchase of Compactor (4-6 Shalves) which was covered by sanction of the competent authority and in no way defaulted with the procedure o purchase prescribed in G.F.R. Civil Accounts Manual and the relevant Audit guidelines, may be held regularized and finally settled since respondents failed to furnish any legitimate grounds against this valid purchase.

(e) That the applicant may be allowed to draw its annual increment on regular basis without any interruptions.

(f) Allow any other further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case in order to meet the ends of justice.

(g) Allow exemplary costs of this petition in favour of the applicant. And

(h) Allow costs of this Application in favour of the humble applicant. "

The relevant facts of the case are that a departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for holding a major penalty proceedings with respect to the applicant on the charge that he was responsible for purchase of a compacter at the cost of Rs.97,000/- in an irregular manner and that the quotations collected from at least one of the firms was bogus etc. The charge is extracted below:-

"Article of charge-1

While functioning as Librarian at Central Institute of Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Dr. Pratap Singh was responsible for purchase of a Compactor at the cost of Rs.97,000 in an irregular manner. He was indentor for the Compactor and also a member of the Committee which went to purchase Compactor from local market. The quotation collected from atleast one of the firm was bogus and payment to the supplier was made in cash instead of cheque/DD. He was thus responsible for this irregular purchase in violation of GFR. By this above act, Dr. Pratap Singh failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Public Service and thus violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended to ICAR employees."

Alongwith the article of charge, statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses were served on the applicant. As the applicant did not admit the charge, an inquiry officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer following the principles of natural justice and all the relevant procedural rules held the departmental enquiry. After going through the entire material brought on record in the departmental enquiry the Inquiry Officer held that charge leveled against the applicant was not proved vide inquiry report dated 30.07.2010. The disciplinary authority after perusing the inquiry report disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and issued a disagreement notice dated 15.03.2012 based on the material, which were forming part of the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority also sought second CVC advice dated 14.02.2012. The inquiry report and CVC advice as well as the disagreement notice were served on the applicant. The applicant submitted his representation dated 29.03.2012. After considering all the evidence which is brought on record in the departmental enquiry and the CVC advice and the representation made by the applicant on the disagreement note, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the applicant has committed the misconduct and imposed a penalty of withholding one increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect vide order dated 20.06.2012. The Revision filed by the applicant was dismissed after detailed discussion by the Revisionary Authority vide order dated 21.01.2013.

The counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that it is a case of no evidence as the disagreement memo is not based on any material, in support of his submissions, the counsel for the applicant relied upon the following judgments:

(1) Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank (1992) 19 ATC 639 (SC)

(2) Mohammed Muzhar Hussain and Others Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise and Others (1991(2) ATJ 245 (Madras)

(3) Dhanwant Singh Vs. Union of India and Another (176. Swamy's CL Digest 1997/1-OA 1267/1994 Date of Judgment 4-2-1997)

(4) S.C.Debnath Vs. Union of India and Others (177. Swamy's CL Digest 1997/1-OA2619/1990 Date of Judgment 13-3-1997)

(5) R.K.Sharma Vs. Union of India (178. Swamy's CL Digest 1997/1-OA 2783/1991 Date of Judgment 24-4-1997)

(6) Dharampal Arora Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr.(XI-2007(3)AISLJ 251)

(7) Rampal Singh Uppal Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, Chandigarh and others (P&H High Court)

(8) Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2008(2) SLR-194)

(9) State of Punjab Vs. Jaswant Singh (2011(1) SCT 617)

(10) N.Sundaramurthy and Others Vs. Lt. Governor of Pondicherry with connected OAs) (1990)12ATC 553)

(11) Anil Kumar Jain Vs. UOI & Ors (ATJ 2005(3) 322) We have perused the inquiry report. Indeed the inquiry officer has held that the charges are not proved. We have gone through the disagreement note. The disagreement note is based on the material which is collected in the departmental enquiry. The applicant has not pointed out any specific rules of conducting departmental proceedings which has been violated. The law laid down in the above stated cases is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

The law relating to judicial review by the Tribunal in the departmental enquiries has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:

(1). In the case of K.L.Shinde Vs. State of Mysore (1976) 3 SCC 76), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 observed as under:-

"9. Regarding the appellant's contention that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge against him, it may be observed that neither the High Court nor this Court can re-examine and re-assess the evidence in writ proceedings. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence against a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark. It may also be observed that departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal prosecutions in which high degree of proof is required. It is true that in the instant case reliance was placed by the Superintendent of Police on the earlier statements made by the three police constables including Akki from which they resiled but that did not vitiate the enquiry or the impugned order of dismissal, as departmental proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act. That apart, as already stated, copies of the statements made by these constables were furnished to the appellant and he cross-examined all of them with the help of the police friend provided to him. It is also significant that Akki admitted in the course of his statement that he did make the former statement before P. S. I. Khada-bazar police station, Belgaum, on November 21, 1961 (which revealed appellant's complicity in the smuggling activity) but when asked to explain as to why he made that statement, he expressed his inability to do so. The present case is, in our opinion, covered by a decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa, (1963) 2 SCR 943=AIR 1963 SC 375 where it was held as follows:-

"Domestic tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and therefore, they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against who it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts.

In respect of taking the evidence in an enquiry before such tribunal, the person against whom a charge is made should know the evidence which is given against him, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. When the evidence is oral, normally the explanation of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged who will have full opportunity of cross-examining him. The position is the same when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put to him, and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. They are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them." Again in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Others (AIR 1996 SC 484) at para 12 and 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"12. 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 eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of a 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 be 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 office is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at the 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 of 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.

The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry 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 (1964) 4 SCR 718 : (AIR 1964 SC 364), this Court held at page 728 (of SCR): (at p 369 of AIR), 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". Recently in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. P.Gunasekaran (2015(2) SCC 610), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"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 alsoendorsed 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 consideration;

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."

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and in view of the fact that the counsel for the applicant has not brought to our notice violation of any procedural rules or principles of natural justice, the OA requires to be dismissed.

Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.