UNION OF INDIA Vs. GURVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the recommendation made by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal is beyond jurisdiction.

(3.) We have carefully perused the record. Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for having left the workplace at about 9.25 AM and misbehaved with his senior, his return to the Tool Room. After appreciating the entire matter, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry had been conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. In paragraph 6 of the order, it has been categorically noted that in the quest to reach the truth, the Central Administrative Tribunal had summoned the entire record concerning the departmental enquiry. After noticing judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 : 1995 (6) SCC 749 : 1996-I-LLJ-1231 State of Tamilnadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, 1994 (6) SCC 302, Union of India v. Upendra Singh, 1994 (3) SCC 357 : 1994-I-LLJ-808, Government of Tamilnadu v. A. Rajapandian AIR 1995 SC 561 : 1995 (1), SCC 216: 1995-I-LLJ-953, State of Tamilnadu and Another v. S. Subramaniam, AIR 1996 SC 1232 : 1996 (7) SCC 509, Director General of Police and Ors. v. Jani Basha, 1998 (9) SCC 490 and Syed Rahimuddin v. Director General, C.S.I.R. and others, 2001-II-LLJ-1246, the Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly held that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to appraise or reappreciate the evidence to substitute its own findings over the findings of the disciplinary authority as it is not supposed to act as an Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Tribunal notices the service record of respondent No. 1. The record shows that respondent No. 1 has risen from Class IV post to the post of Artisan (Technician). His sincerity and devotion to duty can be adjudged from the fact that during the tool down strike at R.C.F. Kapurthala in the year 1997, he continued to perform his duties despite continuous threat of his fellow employees. After noticing the entire service record, the Tribunal has very rightly observed that the solitary incident of misbehaviour cannot be a ground to remove respondent No. 1 from service totally ignoring his earlier meritorious record. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error of jurisdiction and has rather taken a proper and humane approach.