UNION OF INDIA Vs. SOBHA MARY ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Railways, the petitioner herein, is aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal in an Original Application filed by a charge-sheeted employee ['CSE' for short] challenging the order of compulsory retirement imposed upon her as a punishment pursuant to disciplinary proceedings.

(2.) The CSE was proceeded against on two counts, one of which was found to be not proved, by the Tribunal, despite the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority finding it to be proved. On the second charge, it was held to be proved and there was a direction to the disciplinary authority to consider the punishment afresh especially since that imposed of compulsory retirement would be disproportionate, considering the gravity of the second misconduct alleged and proved.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Smt.Sumathy Dandapani appearing for the Railways would take us meticulously through the various documents produced to contend that on preponderance of probabilities the CSE has to be found guilty on both counts; which misconducts were alleged on the basis of a trap set, with the help of a decoy. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in re-appreciating the evidence, to find lack of proof to bring home the guilt of the CSE on one count of the allegations. The Tribunal also erred in finding procedural irregularity as to questioning of the CSE on conclusion of the inquiry especially since the CSE had voluntarily submitted that she would submit a written defense. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the decisions in Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway v. G.Ratnam [(2007) 8 SCC 212], Govt. of T.N. v. A.Rajapandian [AIR 1995 SC 561] and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762] to assail the findings of the Tribunal. It is urged that the Tribunal is not an appellate authority and is in judicial review; which power has been overstepped.