RAVIKANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was working as General Manager Telecom District, Hamirpur (HP) during the period 20.10.2000 to 30.10.2001. On 31.08.2009, he was served with a charge sheet containing the following two Articles of Charge: -

(2.) THE applicant denied the charges and an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer (EO) submitted his report on 27.12.2010 in which he found both the charges to be not proved. The respondents after consultation with CVC issued a disagreement note against the findings of the enquiry report as far as Article -I of the charge was concerned. EO's finding regarding Article -2 of the charge was accepted. After considering the reply of the applicant thereon the respondents passed the impugned order dated 05.03.2013 by which penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension was imposed on the applicant. This order was issued by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) who happened to be the President in this case. Even though no statutory appeal could be made against the order of the President, the applicant submitted a representation against the same on 30.04.2013 and followed it with a reminder on 29.07.2013. However, the respondents did not reply to the same. He has now filed this O.A. before us seeking the following relief: -

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 have filed their replies in which they have disputed the averments made by the applicant. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, it is stated that the applicant has been found guilty of serious charges, which were noticed during departmental investigation. The departmental proceedings were held as per prescribed procedure in accordance with the Statutory Rules. Thus, there is no reason for this Tribunal to interfere in the same. The respondent No. 1 has further stated that in various judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts have held that while exercising the power of judicial review, this Tribunal cannot act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents have relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endlow, : (1994) 2 SCC 537 in which it was held that imposition of proper punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the DA and it was not open to Hon'ble High Courts or Tribunals to interfere in the same. Further, relying on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Chief of Army Staff v. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety, : (1985) 2 SCC 412, the respondents have stated that this Tribunal was not entitled to go into the merits of the charge/allegations levelled against the delinquent. The respondents have thus prayed that this O.A. be dismissed.