G. Chandrasekar vs The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and Union of India

R. Banumathi and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ.—The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A. No. 970 of 2012, dated 28.06.2013. The petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the

punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the disciplinary authority, by order dated 23.12.2011, as confirmed by the appellate

authority and the revisional authority by orders dated 12.01.2012, and 23.07.2012 respectively.

The Tribunal on consideration of the contentions raised and on perusal of the materials placed on record, dismissed the application holding that

the punishment of compulsory retirement with 75% pension and 75% gratuity is lenient and no case has been made out to interfere with the said

order.

Assailing the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal, Mr. T.S. Rajmohan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that

the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination and the allegation that he misbehaved with the other staff under the influence of alcohol has

not been established in the manner known to law and this basic flaw was not rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the

burden of proof is on the department and when the petitioner was not subjected to any medical examination, the department did not discharge the

onus cast upon them, which vitiates the entire proceedings.

The petitioner, who was working as an Accounts Assistant in the respondent organization, was issued a charge sheet dated 19.08.2010, for

having failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a responsible railway servant. The charge

being that during office hours, he would come inside the section under the influence of alcohol and pick up quarrel with the staff and prevent them

from discharging their duties; on 30.06.2010, he entered the room of the officers in a drunken state and threatened the officers with dire

consequence, besides misbehaving with other staff; that the petitioner will sign the attendance in the forenoon and thereafter disappear for the

whole day and not attend to the work allotted to him. Consequently, the work allotted to the petitioner had to be distributed to other staff in order

to ensure timely payment of settlement claims in the electrical workshop.

Domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 21.09.2011 holding that the charges proved. The

petitioner submitted his further explanation and the disciplinary authority after considering the entire matter imposed the penalty of compulsory

retirement from service with 75% pension and 75% gratuity. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority, by order

dated 17.02.2012, and confirmed by the revisional authority, by order dated 20.07.2012.

From a perusal of the findings of the enquiry officer, it is seen that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 09.03.2011 in which the petitioner

stated that he does not require a defence helper. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted on 20.06.2011, in which the petitioner participated in which

five witnesses were examined as departmental witnesses and they were cross examined by the petitioner. The enquiry officer took note of the

statement given by the petitioner in the enquiry, in which the petitioner accepted that consumption of alcohol during office hours is punishable. The

complaint lodged in this regard on 04.05.2010, 30.06.2010, the deposition of witness No. 1, who was cross examined by the petitioner and the

apology letter given by the petitioner, which was marked as document No. 4 and other documents were considered and the enquiry officer held

that the charges were proved.

For the first time, in the written statement given by the petitioner on receipt of the copy of the findings of the enquiry officer, a faint plea was

raised by the petitioner stating that he was not medically tested to prove that he was under the influence of alcohol. The disciplinary authority taking

note of the findings of the enquiry officer and that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in the enquiry proceedings and taking note of the

admission of the petitioner during the oral enquiry that he entered the room of the senior official in a drunken state on 30.06.2010, imposed the

penalty of compulsory retirement. This order was confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities by assigning reasons.

In a recent decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court

considered the legal issue as regards the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and after taking note of the earlier decisions held as follows:--

In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial, and in spite

of this fact that the same are quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal, doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt, does not apply in such cases, but the

principles of preponderance of probabilities would apply. The court has to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the

delinquent had committed a misconduct. However, the said conclusion should be reached on the basis of test of what a prudent person would have

done.

The legal principle is that the departmental proceedings being a quasi-judicial one, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with.

There should be some evidence to prove the charge and the enquiry officer who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that

there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charge on the basis of the materials on record.

In the preceding paragraphs we have discussed above the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the admission of guilt in a statement given

by the petitioner, that the petitioner had cross examined the departmental witnesses and also recorded a satisfaction that the departmental

proceedings were conducted in a proper manner.

All these factors were considered by the Tribunal and it has been held that the order of punishment is infact a lenient one, compared to the

charge of misconduct against the petitioner.

The scope of judicial review in such matters has also been considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Nirmala J. Jhala, referred

supra, and it is beneficial to quote the relevant portion:--

...Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the authority can be raised/examined, nor the question of re-

appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness of the order under challenge. If there are sufficient grounds for passing an order, then even if

one of them is found to be correct, and on its basis the order impugned can be passed, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere....

As noticed above, there is no violation of principles of natural justice and there is no error of law or procedural error for this Court to exercise its

power of judicial review in this matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.