WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3049/2011 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3049/2011 Date of order: 9th May, 2011 K.K. KOTHARI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. A.K. Trivedi and Mr.V. R. Sankar Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? SANJIV KHANNA, J.: By the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (Tribunal, for short) O.A.No.95/2008 filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was chargesheeted and awarded punishment of reduction in lower pay-scale of Rs.3500-4590 for a period of three years. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the penalty was modified WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3049/2011 Page 2 of 3 and the period was reduced to 18 months and until he is found fit, after the said period, to be restored in the higher pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner. This is correct, but the disciplinary authority had issued note of disagreement to the petitioner. Thereafter, following the procedure prescribed, the disciplinary authority had held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct as on 11th December, 2003, at about 2.15 p.m., he had misbehaved with Garage Superintendent by shouting at him and and told him to shut-up and had used offensive and abusive language. He had rushed towards the Garage Superintendent’s room. In fact, immediately after the incident preliminary inquiry was held and a report was submitted. 4. Learned Tribunal has considered the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in paragraph 6 of the order impugned and dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner and has rejected the same. 5. The disciplinary authority had relied upon the evidence of Garage Superintendent and Devindra Narayana and by applying the principle of preponderance of probability held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. The appellate authority examined the contention of the appellant, but did not agree with him. However, as WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3049/2011 Page 3 of 3 noticed above, the penalty was reduced from three years to 18 months and until the petitioner is found fit to be restored to higher grade. 6. Before the Tribunal it was contended that the preliminary inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner, but this was found to be factually incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the factual findings by the disciplinary authority are incorrect. We are not sitting in appeal and while exercising power of judicial review, we are only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision itself. The present case does not fall in the category of no evidence and the decision of the authorities cannot be regarded as perverse as the orders have been passed after due application of mind and on the basis of the material and evidence on record. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 09, 2011 NA/VKR