AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM:-
By filing this O.A., the applicant is aggrieved against the order dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure A-7) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 20.03.2015(Annexure A-1) dismissing the applicant from service.
The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant was initially appointed as UDC in the Income tax Department. A formal complaint was filed with the CBI against the applicant for demanding bribe of Rs. 1000/-. The CBI after discreet verification of the complaint, registered the case on 11.09.2008. The CBI after completing the requisite formalities laid a trap on Shri B.N.Bala and Shri Dilip Takhtani. They were subsequently intercepted on 11.09.2008. After due sanction of prosecution under section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of prevention of corruption act 1988(No 19 of 1988) charge sheet was filed under Prevention and Corruption Act 1998 on 24.02.2009. The Special Judge CBI in special case No.12/2009 vide order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure A 2) convicted the applicant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000 u/s 120B of Indian Penal Code. Consequent upon the order of Special court CBI, the Commissioner of Income Tax II being the competent authority issued a show cause notice dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure A-3) for imposition of penalty. The applicant filed the reply to the show cause notice on 24.02.2015 (Annexure A-4). However, without considering the reply of applicant an order of dismissal was passed under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure A-1). Aggrieved with the order dated 20.03.2015, the applicant filed an appeal dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure A-5) before the respondent No. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (respondent No.2) vide order dated 03.12.2015 confirmed the dismissal order (Annexure A -7). Hence this O.A.
The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that the conduct of the applicant which led to his conviction was such that his further retention in the public service was felt undesirable as the gravity of the charge warranted imposition of a major penalty. He had requested for sympathetic consideration for not imposing the penalty of dismissal from services. However, the same was rejected and the official has been dismissed by respondent No. 3 vide Hon'ble CIT-II, Jabalpur's order dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure A-1). The respondents have further submitted that the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities have categorically held that the applicant is being dismissed from service under Rule 19 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Admittedly, the applicant has been convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. Thus, it cannot be stated that the conviction of the applicant by the trial court was technical or of a trivial nature. The fact that the applicant has been convicted by the trial court is a sufficient proof of misconduct on his part.
The applicant has also filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents wherein he has re-iterated his earlier stand as taken in the O.A.
We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
In this case, the disciplinary authority after due diligence and with proper application of mind and based upon the enquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer came to a conclusion that the quantum of punishment was appropriate for the misconduct committed by the charged official. A careful examination of the contentions mentioned in the Original Application reveal that none of the contentions raised therein are procedural in nature which convinces us that there has been any procedural infirmity in the process of Disciplinary inquiry or in I.O's report/order of the Disciplinary Authority/the Appellate Authority. None of these grounds raised in the O.A. mention any procedural lacunae or violation of the principles of natural justice.
As per the Hon'ble Apex Court's various pronouncements in a disciplinary case, power of Tribunal and Courts of judicial review of such orders are quite limited and within the confines of the observations and directions and ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Some of the relevant cases laws are:
In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 :
In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17.While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.
In OAs challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re-appreciation of evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tiwari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held that "The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice".
In this case, the applicant has been convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. The disciplinary authority after being satisfied with the inquiry officer’s report has imposed the major penalty and dismissed the applicant from service. The appeal of the applicant has been considered and decided by the appellate authority on merits of the case.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove and also keeping in mind the ratio laid down in catena of judgments discussed above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
Hence, the O.A. being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.