H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR \^ CQRAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. W.P.(S)No. 6526 of 2008 Ashok Ku. Patra Vs. The Union of India & others JUDGMENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA -^- For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment :4^08/2Q( Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \li. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. PETITJONER RESPONDENTS W.P.fSl No. 6526 of 2008 Ashok Ku. Patra S/o Damodar Patra, Aged about 38 years, R/o Deori Khurd, Satwahini Marg, Bilaspur Versus 1. The Union of India Through its General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Through its Registrar Bench at Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Railway Manager SEC Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Divisional Electrical Engineer TRD, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer TRD, SEC Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Appearance: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, counsel forthe petitioner. Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 to 5. JUDGMENT (4 .08.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) The petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 30 of July, 2008 passed in Original Application No. 843/2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CAT), Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed his ^ "^. ^Klfe \\^ W.P.CS)No. 6526 of 2008 Original Application (O.A.) which was filed for quashment of the punishment order dated 29.3.2006 and the appellate order dated 8.8.2006 (Annexure-A/1 & A/2 filed in O.A.). (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The petitioner, while working as a khalasi was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge-sheet dated 7.11.2000 making following allegations:- "ShriA.K. Patra, Khalasi, PSI/BSP was absent from duty from 8.10.00 to 10.10.00 as per official record available, but he has shown his attendance in P-1 shift duty in all 3 (three) days without informing TP.C on duty or SE/PSI/BSP. Further he had misbehaved with SE/PSI/BSP when pointed out his false attendance from 8.10.00 to 10.10.00 this act of Shri A.K. Patra, KSI/PSI/BSP, tantamount gross misbehaviour on duty and rendehng himself liable for disciplinary action under Railway Servant (D.A.), 1968." The first charge relating to his unauthorized absence from 8.10.2000 to 10.10.2000 was not proved. However, the charges of misbehaviour with Mr. A.K. Pradhan, the then SE/PSI/BSP was held to be proved and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority imposed the following punishment on the petitioner:- "Your pay is reduced by 10 stages below from Rs.3140/- to Rs. 2550/- in time scale of pay Rs. 2550-3200/- for a period of5 years. The punishment shall operate to postponement the future increments." The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, on due consideration, reduced the punishment in the following manner:- "Your pay is reduced by 5 stages below from Rs.3140/- to Rs.2840/- in time scale ofpay Rs.2550-3200/- for a period of 3 years. The punishment shall operate to postponement of yourfuture increments." ^ W.P.fS)No. 6526 of 2008 Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders before the CAT, Jabalpur by filing the aforesaid O.A., the said O.A. was dismissed and the order of punishment was upheld. (3) Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the complainant namely A.K. Pradhan was not examined by the respondents before the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the charges of misbehaviour were not proved and the authorities erred in law in holding such charges proved against the petitioner and awarding the said punishment to him. He referred to the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the matters of Kuldeep Sinah -Vs- The Commissioner of Po//ce and others. AIR 1999 SC 677 and Hardwari Lal -Vs- State of U.P. and others, AIR 2000 SC 277. (4) On the other hand, Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3 to 5, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Tribunal. She argued that it was not a case of no evidence. The charges of misbehaviour were proved by two independent witnesses, therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. She also referred to the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the matters of Union of India and Another-Vs- B.C. Chaturvedi. (1995) 6 SCC 749 and M.V. Biilani -Vs- Union of India and Others, (2006] 5 SCC 88. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ petition. M^^*» •N '%:^, '^. W.P.('S)No. 6526 of 2008 (6) What jurisdiction is vested with the Tribunal or the High Court in such matters is no longer res integra . It is almost a settle view that "The 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 the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of 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 are 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. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. The Court/Tribunal in its power ofjudicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in w W.P.CS)No. 6526 of 2008 a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or 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 that case." This is what the Supreme Court held in the matter of 6.C. Chaturvedi (supra). (7) In the matter of M.V. Bijlani (supra), the Supreme Court held that "The disciplinary proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Though proof beyond all reasonable doubt as required in criminal trial is not necessary in the departmental proceedings, charges in said proceedings has to be proved by preponderance of probability". In the present case though the complainant A.K. Pradhan was not examined by the respondents but the respondents examined two other witnesses namely Mr. R.K. Yadav and Mr. G. Minz. The Disciplinary Authority in the punishment order observed that Mr. R.K. Yadav deposed that at the relevant time, he saw Mr. A.K. Patra coming down stairs and shouting " ^' sjj^- c^ -^f ^ ^wn I vft ^W ^' ^ ^777' / ^^ ^' ^ ^ ^r Wc^ ^7 (^" Q57 W^ ^fT' e^ ^1^1 ^ I ". He further observed that Mr. G. Minz also deposed that at the relevant date and time, suddenly he heard shouts coming from up stairs from the office of SE/PSI/BSP. The shout was both of Sri. A.K. Pradhan and Sri. A.K. Patra. So he started going to 1 floor to the office of Sri. Pradhan. At the middle of stair case he saw Sri. A.K. Patra coming down with uttering sentences like '"5T[T^ ^ ^i ^T ^rr^ ?t 1 ^TT ^RT ^rTc^ ^- |" Then Sri •;..-'-'i, £' ^. W.P.(-S)No. 6526 of 2008 w A.K. Patra went away". It is in this state of evidence, the Disciplinary Authority had awarded the above punishment to the petitioner which was ultimately reduced by the Appellate Authority in the above manner. We do not find that in such circumstance, it was a case of no evidence against the petitioner. The finding of misbehaviour was based on atleast some evidence and if on such evidence, the petitioner was held guilty of misbehaviour by the Disciplinary Authority, it shall not be turned as unjustified nor the power of judicial review, in such cases, therefore, would be exercised. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Ahluwalia that since the complainant was not examined, the entire enquiry vitiates. (8) The reliance of Mr. Ahluwalia on the decision of Kuldeep Singh (supra) is totally misconceived. In the said case also, the Supreme Court held that normally the hligh Court and Supreme Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of 'guilt' is basedon no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has cautioned that a broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. It further cautioned that if a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But, if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. We may note that in the said case, the allegations were that the appellant did not pay (g) W.P.(-S)No. 6526 of 2008 entire amount to labourers but kept some amount with himself and factory owner appearing as a witness for the Department, denied having made any payment to the appellant on that day. The labourers- complainants to whom the payment was said to have been made have not been produced at the domestic enquiry. It is in this situation, the SupremeCourt has allowed the appeal and concerned orders passed by the respective authorities were quashed. Therefore on factual aspect, the judgment is distinguishable because in case on hand, the two witnesses have been examined and they have supported the case ofthe department by making the above averments. Therefore, we do not hold it to be case of "no evidence" and we are of the considered view that in such a situation, non examination of the complainant would make no difference. (9) In the matter of Hardwari Lal (supra), the appellant was a constable in the police department in the State of U.P. The charges were that under the influence of liquor hurled he abused in the police station at Constable, Prakash Chandra Pandey. The two important witnesses of the department namely Virender Singh who was also the complainant in the case and Jagdish Ram who was supposed to have witnessed the incident and who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination were not examined. It is in this situation, the Supreme Court said that it was a case of non observance of principles of natural justice and the dismissal of the appellant was set aside and the appellant was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% of the back salary being payable to the appellant. In the present case, as stated above, the two witness have been examined and the matter is /£^ s ^^'^.'J^, ^ ^a^, 1 'w ^ W.P.(S)No. 6526 of 2008 '\€ :^ distinguishable on facts being a matter to be classified under the category of "some evidence available" and not that the case of no evidence or the case of non observance of principles of natural justice. (10) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct as also the Appellate Authority while reducing the punishment of the petitioner and the Tribunal while confirming the said order passed by the Appellate Authority. (11) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (12) Nocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti