IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7650 of 2011 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. ………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus S.K.SINGH, SON OF LT. COL (RETD) RAM RANDHIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF ROAD NO.1-B, RAJENDRA NAGAR, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………………………………………RESPONDENT. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. R. Ahsan & R.S. Pradhan Senior Advocates, Amrendra Narain Rai and Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocates. For the Respondent : M/s. Jitendra Singh, Senior Advocate, Ashutosh Kumar, Rajesh Ranjan, Shankar Kumar Thakur and Harsh Kumar, Advocates. -------------- 3. 13.5.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the private respondent. The impugned order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. 2 No.702 of 2009 contained in Annexure-‘9’ has been assailed by the petitioners mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that from discussions made by the learned Tribunal in paragraph-19, it will appear that reliance was place upon the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 SC 2713 without appreciating that in the present case there was a notice contained in Annexure-‘4’ to which the inquiry report was also appended and, hence, the judgment of Tribunal has been influenced by error of facts. Secondly, it was submitted that although the notice contained in Annexure-‘4’ has been taken note of by the Tribunal and parts of the findings given by the disciplinary authority by way of tentative reasons have been extracted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in looking for materials to support the contrary view taken by the disciplinary authority vis-à-vis the findings in the inquiry report. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000)1 SCC 416 in support of the proposition that disciplinary authority, while differing from the findings of the 3 inquiry officer is not required to discuss the materials in detail as if it is contesting the conclusions of the inquiry officer. We have carefully gone through the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal under challenge and it is noticed that the Tribunal was suffering from no error of facts. The conclusions of the Tribunal are not guided by lack of reasons on the part of the disciplinary authority for contesting the views of the inquiry officer rather the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the views of the disciplinary authority itself as mentioned in the notice and those views of the disciplinary authority have been rightly appreciated for coming to the conclusion that in the estimate of the disciplinary authority itself it was only a case of the delinquent not being extra vigilant. The views of the disciplinary authority on consideration of the entire inquiry report evident from Annexure-‘4’ show that the petitioner may not have been an efficient or model employee but he had not committed any misconduct nor there was any kind of motive or malafide intention found against him. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindra Kumar Verma Vs. State Bank of India, 2007(3) 4 PLJR 137 for holding that since applicant had not committed any misconduct, he could not be awarded any punishment. Even if the Tribunal wrongly indicated that the authorities have violated Rules of natural justice, that is not the basis for the final conclusion given by the Tribunal and according to us also even if ground of violation of natural justice is ignored, the conclusions of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)