AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Heard Shri Manoj kumar Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned major penalty charge sheet (SF-5) dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure A-1 of O.A.) show cause notice along with inquiry report dated 6.8.2009 ( Annexure A-2), order of major penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority /Sr.DPO/N.C. Railway. Allahabad dated 11.01.2010 (Annexure A-3) and Appellate order passed by ADRM/N.C. Railway, Allahabad dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure A-4) and allow all consequential benefits as if no impugned orders were ever passed against the applicant.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the recovery done from salary on account of imposition of above said penalty against the applicant.
(iii) Any other it or order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
(iv) Cost of the application may also be awarded."
The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in original application are that the applicant was initially appointed on 01.02.1983 and received several promotions, ultimately became Chief Personnel Inspector (CPI/S&WI-I) on 07.08.1998. His service record remained blotless throughout. While working as CPI/S&WI-I, the applicant conducted a verification of a new construction on 18.01.2002 for which Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava had taken a House Building Advance (HBA). Based on this verification, the second HBA installment was released. The construction was later demolished in July 2002 due to a family dispute, and the concerned authorities were informed by Shri Srivastava on multiple occasions in 2002. On 6.11.2007, the applicant's statement was recorded by a Vigilance Inspector regarding the 2002 verification. Subsequently, based on an allegedly false report by the Vigilance team, a major penalty charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 29.2.2008, accusing him of providing a false verification report that led to the misuse of HBA funds. The applicant requested and was supplied relevant documents and submitted a written reply to the charge sheet. An inquiry was held under a nominated inquiry officer, and the applicant submitted his defense note on 06.03.2009. An adverse inquiry report was submitted and communicated to the applicant via a show cause notice dated 06.08.2009. Despite a detailed representation submitted by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of reduction in time scale by two stages for one year. The applicant filed a statutory appeal, which was rejected through an unreasoned and non-speaking order. Therefore, there is no other option except to file this original application.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it has been stated that the applicant has furnished false and fabricated report regarding construction and physical verification of House for his wrongful personal gain. Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, an Accounts Assistant, was sanctioned a House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs.2,68,800 for construction over Arazi No. 515, Village Antu, Sandwa Chandrika, Pratapgarh. The loan was to be disbursed in installments based on verification of construction progress. The applicant, Khaiya Lal, was assigned to verify and report on the progress of the construction. On 18.1.2002, the applicant submitted a report stating that significant construction comprising rooms, a kitchen, a courtyard, a drawing room, and a boundary wall had been carried out. Based on this report, the second installment of the HBA was released. However, a vigilance team inspection on 21.8.2007 revealed that no new construction existed on the said site. Independent witnesses and nearby residents confirmed that no construction had ever taken place at the stated location. The applicant was issued a major penalty charge sheet alleging submission of a false verification report for personal gain. An inquiry was conducted, all relevant documents and evidence were supplied, and the applicant was found guilty of submitting a false verification report. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for one year, without affecting future increments or seniority. The applicant's appeal against the order was dismissed on 08.04.2010. The demolition theory cited by the applicant was considered a fabricated defense. The inquiry and penalty orders were based on findings of fact and corroborated evidence, with no contradiction found in the vigilance report. The misconduct was held to be proven, and the punishment imposed was deemed justified. Therefore, the competent authority has not committed any illegality or infirmity as such the original application filed by the applicant may be dismissed.
In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant the applicant has reiterated almost the same submissions which has been stated in the original application. The applicant has submitted that the applicant conducted a physical verification of construction on Arazi No.515, Village Antu Sandwa Chandrika, Pratapgarh, on 18.01.2002, for which Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, Accounts Assistant, had taken House Building Advance (HBA). At that time, the construction was ongoing, and the verification report was correctly submitted. However, following a family dispute after the death of Shri Srivastava’s father on 05.05.2002, the construction was halted and later demolished in July 2002, which was duly communicated by Shri Srivastava to his department on 12.08.2002. Subsequently, he completed the construction at a different location using the same HBA. Despite this, a vigilance inspection, conducted after a lapse of six years on 21.08.2007, reported no construction at the site. The applicant contends that the vigilance team erroneously visited a nearby village "Antu Nawadia" rather than the correct site and failed to associate either the applicant or Shri Srivastava during inspection. The vigilance report was based on hearsay from one Brajesh Srivastava, who did not testify or appear for cross-examination during the inquiry. The inquiry officer relied on vigilance report and presumed guilt without direct evidence proving the verification done in 2002 was false. Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, in his testimony, confirmed that construction had occurred before the dispute and subsequent demolition. The applicant argues that the charge of submitting a false report is baseless, the inquiry was vitiated by procedural irregularities, lacked material witnesses, and amounted to a “no evidence” case. The imposed penalty of reduction in pay scale was, therefore, arbitrary, perverse, and influenced by the vigilance department’s missteps. The applicant seeks to set aside the penalty and disciplinary proceedings as unlawful.
We have heard Shri Manoj Kumar Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record as well as the written submission.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is a permanent Railway employee since 01.02.1983, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings based on the verification conducted by him in official capacity in 2002 for house construction. Although the verification led to the lawful release of an HBA installment, the construction was later demolished due to a family dispute, which was duly reported by the applicant. After more than five years, based on a belated Vigilance report, a major penalty charge sheet was issued. Despite submitting a proper defence and raising objections to procedural lapses and lack of evidence, the applicant was penalized by way of reduction in time scale, and his statutory appeal was rejected through a non-speaking order. The applicant challenges the proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice, and seeks quashing of the charge sheet, show cause notice with inquiry report, major penalty order, and appellate order, along with refund of any recovered amount, and allow all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant submitted a false and fabricated verification report regarding house construction for wrongful personal gain, facilitating the unauthorized release of the second installment of House Building Advance (HBA) to Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant's report dated 18.01.2002 falsely described substantial construction, whereas a Vigilance inspection on 21.08.2007 found no construction at the site, confirmed by independent witnesses and local residents. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and after supplying all relevant documents and conducting an inquiry, the applicant was found guilty of misconduct. The penalty of reduction in time scale was imposed without affecting future increments or seniority. The applicant’s claim of demolition due to a family dispute was deemed to be an afterthought. The respondents contend that the inquiry was fair, the findings were based on evidence. He further requests to dismiss the original application, as there is no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice.
It is noted from records that the applicant was proceeded against under rule 9 of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968 on 11.04.2008 on the following Article of Charges:-
“Annexure-I
Statement of article of charge framed against Shri Kanhaiya Lal S/O Late Shri Krishan Biharilal Srivastava working under Sr. DPO, Allahabad.
While working as Employee Welfare Inspector-I under Sr. DPO, Allahabad Shri Kanhaiya Lal committed the following serious irregularity:
Article-I
Shri Kanhaiya Lal is found guilty for furnishing fake house verification report dated 18-01-2002 for the status of construction for the house of Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, AA, Sr. DFM Office, ALD that was never existed with malafide intention. On the basis of this verification report of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Shri Umesh Kumar could get and misutilize the sanctioned HBA amount Rs. 2,68,800/-.
By his above act of omission & commission Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Employee Welfare Inspector-I, Sr.DPO Office, ALD has shown lack of integrity, devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of, a Railway servant contravening provision of Rule no.3(1) (i), (ii) and (III) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,1966.”
The inquiry was conducted as per Rules and the Inquiry Officer found the charge as technically proved in his report. A copy of inquiry report was forwarded to the applicant on 06.08.2009 to make representation, if any, within 15 days. The disciplinary authority also found the charge proved beyond doubt. The charge sheet was issued to the applicant on the basis of Vigilance inspection report dated 21.08.2007 which found no trace of construction at the site. The appeal of the applicant was also rejected by the Appellate Authority.
It is settled principle of law that in Original Applications, challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the 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/Revisional 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 Apex Court in the case of S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale Page 417 has held as under :-
"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 a large number of cases including the case of Bank of India v.Apurba Kumar Saha; (1994) 2 SCC 615, State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723, Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279-1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079, State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Another (2011 STPL (web) 904) and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raghubir Singh and another, CWP No. 1154/2014 decided on 06.05.2014 by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the underline theme is that the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. They have to see whether there is violation of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity committed by the inquiry officer, Disciplinary authority and due procedure was adopted strictly in accordance with the service rule.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that there is no procedural irregularity or violation of rules. The inquiry was fairly conducted and findings were based on evidence and material facts. The penalty has been imposed on the applicant after following due procedure as laid down in Rules. The impugned orders dated 08.04.2008 (Charge sheet), 06.08.2009 (Forwarding of a copy of Inquiry Report to the applicant), 11.01.2010 (Order passed by the disciplinary authority) and 08.04.2010 (Order passed by the Appellate Authority) do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or procedural lapses warranting interference by this court.
Accordingly, the original application is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
Interim Order, if any, stands discharged. All the related MAs stand disposed of.