AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs: -
“(a)Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
(b)Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt. 22.09.20 (Annexure A/1), dt. 21.10.20 (Annexure A/2) and dt. 03.08.21 (Annexure A/3) issued by the disciplinary authority awarding the penalty of “WIP for 03 years”, affirmed by the appellate authority further modified by the reviewing authority to the extent “withholding of increments in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further effect (WIP for 02 years)”.
(c)Allowing the O.A. of the applicant with all other consequential benefits and costs.
(d)Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicant.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
As stated by the applicant, he was appointed as a Trackman (Engineering) under the respondents w.e.f. 23.01.2016. According to the applicant, he had rendered satisfactory and unblemished service and, pursuant to his request, was also deputed as Helper in the TRD Electrical Department, Ramanandi. While working as Trackman-IV/Gangman under the Senior Section Engineer/P.Way/Charkhi Dadri at TM-6, Gang No. 6/C/SDRA, the applicant was served with a Standard Form-5 memorandum dated 16.08.2020 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The charge against him was that he had made false allegations/complaint against his In-charge and Mate, which was alleged to constitute disloyalty towards duty and violation of Rule 3 of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 16.08.2020. The applicant has contended that although the memorandum referred to four annexures, including the statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses, the relevant particulars were left blank and neither the documents relied upon nor the witnesses proposed to prove the charge were supplied to him. The applicant states that he repeatedly sought the relied-upon documents, but the same were not furnished. The applicant was called by the Inquiry Officer to his office on 17.09.2020. According to the applicant, instead of conducting a regular inquiry, he was emotionally pressurized to admit the charge on the assurance/impression that nothing adverse would happen to him. A written representation made by the applicant was thereafter treated as his defence. In the said representation, the applicant stated that he had joined the complaint regarding alleged loss of railway material on the basis of hearsay and under the influence of other gang members, without any ulterior motive, and expressed regret while referring to his clean service record.
The Inquiry Officer submitted his report/findings dated 18.09.2020, recording that the applicant had confessed to making false allegations against his In-charge and Mate and that he was ashamed and feeling guilty. It was further recorded that the applicant had submitted a written representation requesting that no further inquiry proceedings be conducted. The applicant alleges that the Inquiry Officer’s report was not supplied to him for his comments. Instead, the disciplinary authority recorded that it was not satisfied with the applicant’s reply and that he had already pleaded guilty, and proceeded to impose the penalty of withholding of increments for three years (WIP for 3 years). The penalty order dated 22.09.2020 records that the applicant had confessed during the inquiry and was consequently held guilty of the alleged misconduct.
Aggrieved by the penalty, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal on 21.10.2020. In the appeal, he contended, inter alia, that the punishment was disproportionate; that he had not been afforded an effective opportunity of defence; that the relevant documents and witnesses were not supplied; and that the inquiry had not been conducted in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedure. He further contended that the RPF investigation had not properly considered his version.
The appellate authority rejected the appeal and maintained the penalty of WIP for three years, observing that the penalty appeared to be genuine. The order also referred to allegations that the applicant had obtained false signatures of other employees and had not allowed them to work.
Thereafter, the applicant preferred a revision petition under Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. During the pendency of the matter, the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal. P.T. No. 140/2021 was allowed on 16.07.2021 and the matter was registered as O.A. No. 1470/2021. In the meantime, the reviewing authority, while considering the revision, modified the penalty from withholding of increments for three years to withholding of increments for two years with further effect (WIP for two years) vide order dated 03.08.2021.
Since the reviewing authority had modified the penalty during the pendency of O.A. No. 1470/2021, the applicant sought permission to withdraw the said O.A. with liberty to challenge the subsequent order of the reviewing authority. Such liberty was granted, resulting in the filing of the present O.A. The applicant has challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the orders dated 22.09.2020, 05.11.2020 and 03.08.2021 principally on the grounds that the charge was vague, no relied-upon documents or witnesses were specified, an effective opportunity of defence was denied, the Inquiry Officer’s report was not supplied to him, and the penalty was imposed without proper consideration of his defence. He has also alleged discrimination on the ground that other employees who had signed the same complaint were dealt with by imposition of minor penalties, whereas a substantially harsher penalty was imposed upon him.
The applicant has accordingly approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking, inter alia, quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders and grant of consequential benefits.
Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
Mr. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that it is a case of no evidence as it reveals from the face of records i.e. the charge sheet that in Annexure III & IV neither any document on the basis of which the charges were framed nor any name of the witnesses by whom the charges were to be proved, were mentioned thus in absence thereof the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant is vitiated and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
He further submitted that it reveals from the face of records that a major penalty charge sheet SF-5 was served on the applicant in which despite efforts the applicant has never been supplied any document further the applicant was called by the inquiry officer only once in his office and lured the applicant further recorded the statement of the applicant as per their whims and fancies obtained the signature of the applicant on it giving impression that nothing adverse would be there and concluded the inquiry proceedings on the same day contrary to the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. The Inquiry Officer prepared and submitted the findings proving the charges leveled against the applicant but that has never been supplied on the applicant contrary to the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
Learned counsel argued that the disciplinary authority relying on the perverse findings of the inquiry officer awarded the penalty of WIP for 03 years on the basis of his own findings to the extent that the applicant is careless towards his duties further finding him the guilty of committing serious misconduct of massing with the Railway Safety Rules and not to maintaining the dignity of his post and duties with further directions that his future increments will be postponed. (WIP for 3 Years).
He further argued that the Disciplinary Authority awarded the penalty of WIP on the applicant relying on the perverse findings submitted by the inquiry officer even without supplying and offering the comments of the applicant against the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. The applicant has been discriminated as the other co-accused of the applicant namely Vikash Kumar S/o Sh. Mahender Singh & Umesh Kumar S/o Sh. Omkar Singh both have been working TM-IV, Gang No. 6/C, SDRA under SSE/P.Way/Charkhi-Dadri were issued minor penalty charge sheet and has been awarded the penalty of “WIT for 02 years” whereas in case of the applicant the penalty of WIP has been imposed.
Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Raj Pal Singh, JT 2001 (Suppl. 1) SC 44, wherein it was held that it is undoubtedly within the competence of the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and once charges are established to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory.
Learned counsel argued that the applicant submitted a detailed appeal against the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject but the appeal of the applicant has been rejected and the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority without application of their mind by a non speaking, unreasoned, bald and cryptic order as the contentions raised by the applicant has totally been ignored and has not been considered, appreciated or rebutted at all. The orders awarding the penalty of WIP for three years issued by disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate authority further modified by the reviewing authority to the extent “withholding of increments in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further effect (WIP for 02 years) in such a manner is deliberate, biased, perverse, illegal, unjust, malafide, mechanical, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, against the mandatory provisions of law, violative of article 14. 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, not sustainable in the eyes of law, discriminatory and arbitrary also.
In terms of liberty granted in appellate order the applicant submitted the revision petition under rule 25 of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968 vide its dt. 22.11.20 has been further pursuing as per tune of the concerned officials and now vide order dt. 03.08.21 issued by Sr. Divl. Engg. It has been informed that the while examining the revision petition of the applicant the reviewing authority has modified by the penalty to the extent “withholding of increments in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further effect (WIP for 02 years). It reveals from face of records that the applicant submitted the revision petition in terms of liberty granted by the Appellate Authority but despite efforts of the applicant though the contentions of final orders of Reviewing Authority has been supplied but the original orders have not been served and therefore the actions of the respondents is contrary to the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
The actions of the respondents though serving the contentions of final orders of Reviewing Authority but not supplying the original orders of reviewing authority is contrary to the instructions of O.M. No. 134/1/81-AVD-I dated 13.07.1981 issued by G.I., Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP&AR), which reads as under:-
“Self contained, speaking and reasoned order to be pass and to issue over signature of prescribed Disciplinary/Appellate/ Reviewing Authority:-
1.The undersigned is directed to state that as is well known and settled by the courts, disciplinary proceedings, against the employs conducted under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or under any corresponding rules, are quasi-judicial in nature and as such, it is necessary that orders in such proceedings are issued only by the Competent Authority who have been specified as Disciplinary/ Appellate/Reviewing Authorities under the relevant rules and the orders issued by such authorities should have the attributed of a judicial order. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1302) absorbed that recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensure that the decision is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim of fancy or reached on ground of policy or expediency. The necessity to record reasons is greater if the order is subject to appeal.
2.However, instances have come to the notice of this Department where the final orders passed by the competent Disciplinary/Appellate Authority do not contain the reason on the basis whereof the decisions communicated by that order were reached. Since such orders may not conform to legal requirements, they may be liable to be held invalid, if challenged in a Court of law. It is, therefore, impressed upon all concerned that the authorities exercising disciplinary powers should issue self-contained, speaking and reasoned orders conforming to the aforesaid legal requirements.
3.Instance have also come to notice where, though the decisions in Disciplinary /Appellate cases were taken by the competent Disciplinary/ Appellate Authorities in the files, the final orders were not issued by that authority but only by a lower authority. As a mentioned above, the Disciplinary/ Appellate/Reviewing Authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and as such, they cannot delegate their powers to their subordinate. It is therefore, essential that the decision taken by such authorities are communicated by the Competent Authority under their own signatures, and the order as issued should comply with the legal requirements as indicated in the preceding paragraphs. It is only in those cases where the President is the prescribed paragraphs. It is only in those cases where the President is the prescribed Disciplinary/ Appellate / Reviewing Authority and where the Minister concerned has considered the case and given his orders that an order may be authenticated by an officer, who has been authorized to authenticate orders in the name of the President.
4.The contents of this O.M. may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for their information and guidance.”
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Mr. Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 17.05.2023 on behalf of respondents, submitted that the present O.A. is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the applicant has not placed the complete and correct facts before this Tribunal and has sought to challenge the disciplinary action by making allegations which are contrary to the material available on record. The respondents have specifically denied the allegations and contentions raised by the applicant, except those which are matters of record or have been specifically admitted. Learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant on account of his having made a false complaint and allegations against his in-charge and Mate, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(i) (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1968. The memorandum of charge specifically records that the applicant, by making such false allegations, had acted in a manner inconsistent with his duties and had shown disloyalty towards his duty.
It is also submitted that the allegations made in the complaint were not found to be substantiated upon investigation. The complaint related to alleged theft of railway material from Level Crossing Gate No. 23. However, the investigation conducted by the Railway Protection Force disclosed that Level Crossing Gate No. 23 had already been closed on 29.05.2019 and the railway articles referred to in the complaint had been shifted by the department to Level Crossing Gate No. 24. Upon inspection, the said articles, including the solar plate, battery and fan, were found installed at Gate No. 24. Thus, there was no theft of railway property as alleged in the complaint. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation further revealed that the complaint had been made on the basis of suspicion and hearsay. Trackman Umesh Kumar, who had written the complaint, stated that he had never seen the alleged railway property and that he had not performed duty at Level Crossing Gate No. 23. Similarly, other trackmen who had signed the complaint stated that they had not themselves seen any theft and that they had been induced or pressurized into signing the complaint. Learned counsel contended that the investigation report furnished sufficient material to establish that the complaint was false and baseless. Out of seven persons whose signatures appeared on the complaint, two stated that their signatures had been forged, while other signatories stated that they had been pressurized to sign the complaint. The investigation also recorded that the applicant and another trackman had pressurized other trackmen to sign the complaint.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant himself, during the proceedings, substantially admitted the factual circumstances surrounding the complaint. In his written defence, the applicant stated that the complaint had been made on the basis of hearsay and that he had been misled by other staff members. He further stated that he had signed the complaint without being aware of the facts and expressed regret for his conduct. He also undertook that such conduct would not be repeated in future. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant cannot now contend that there was no material whatsoever against him. The record demonstrates that the disciplinary authority had before it the investigation material, the statements of the concerned employees and the applicant's own written defence. The respondents' case is that the disciplinary action was founded upon the material available on record and was not arbitrary or based on mere conjecture. The subsequent communication regarding the applicant's appeal also records that the decision was based upon the RPF investigation and the enquiry report.
Learned counsel submitted that the applicant was afforded an opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. The record shows that the applicant acknowledged receipt and understanding of the charge-sheet and, during the enquiry, submitted his written defence. He specifically stated that his written answer was his final reply and that he had nothing further to say. Thus, the allegation that the applicant was denied an opportunity of defence is not borne out from the record. As regards the penalty, learned counsel submitted that the applicant was found guilty of serious misconduct and was accordingly awarded the penalty of withholding of increments without cumulative effect. The respondents have stated that the Enquiry Officer was not satisfied with the applicant's explanation and the penalty was imposed after consideration of the material available on record.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Authority duly considered the applicant’s appeal and upheld the penalty after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case. The record indicates that the appellate authority found the applicant to have been careless in the discharge of his duties and to have obtained false signatures from other employees. Thereafter, the reviewing authority further reduced the quantum of penalty to withholding of increments for two years with future effect. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have not imposed a disproportionate or excessive punishment. On the contrary, the penalty was subsequently reduced by the reviewing authority. The applicant was proceeded against not merely for making a complaint but for making false allegations concerning theft of railway property against his superior officials, thereby affecting the discipline and functioning of the Railway administration.
Learned counsel submitted that the applicant’s reliance upon the judgments cited in the O.A. is misplaced, as the factual circumstances of those cases are materially different from the present case. The respondents have specifically denied the applicability of the judgment relied upon by the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that this Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, is not sitting as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings. In the present case, there was material before the disciplinary authority and the enquiry was conducted in relation to the charge levelled against the applicant. The applicant cannot seek re-appreciation of the evidence merely because he seeks a different conclusion.
Learned counsel submitted that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any violation of the prescribed procedure, denial of reasonable opportunity, perversity in the findings, or any legally sustainable ground warranting interference with the disciplinary action. The applicant’s own defence, read with the statements recorded during the investigation, supports the respondents' case that the complaint was made on the basis of hearsay and without verification of the alleged theft.
Learned counsel lastly submitted that the O.A. has been filed seeking to reopen the findings of the disciplinary authorities without establishing any jurisdictional or procedural infirmity. The respondents have specifically pleaded that none of the grounds raised by the applicant is tenable and that the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Original Application be dismissed as being devoid of merit, as the disciplinary action was taken on the basis of the material available on record, the applicant was afforded an opportunity of defence, and the penalty was duly considered at the appellate and reviewing stages. The respondents accordingly prayed for dismissal of the O.A., with costs, in the interest of justice.
ANALYSIS
We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material placed on record.
As stated by the applicant, he was appointed as Trackman (Engineering) under the respondents w.e.f. 23.01.2016 and had rendered satisfactory service. While working as Trackman-IV/Gangman under SSE/P.Way/Charkhi Dadri, he was served with a Standard Form-5 memorandum dated 16.08.2020 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, alleging that he had made false allegations/complaint against his In-charge and Mate, amounting to disloyalty towards duty and violation of Rule 3 of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966. The applicant contended that the relevant documents and list of witnesses were not supplied to him and that he was pressurized by the Inquiry Officer to admit the charge. His written representation was treated as his defence, and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.09.2020 recording his alleged confession. Without furnishing the inquiry report to the applicant, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of increments for three years vide order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure A-1). The applicant preferred a statutory appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 05.11.2020 (Annexure A-2). Thereafter, he preferred a revision petition under Rule 25 of the said Rules. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1470/2021, the reviewing authority modified the penalty from withholding of increments for three years to withholding of increments for two years with further effect vide order dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure A-3). The applicant thereafter withdrew the earlier O.A. with liberty to challenge the subsequent order and filed the present O.A., assailing the disciplinary proceedings and the orders dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure A-1), 05.11.2020 (Annexure A-2) and 03.08.2021 (Annexure A-3) on the grounds of vagueness of the charge, non-supply of relied-upon documents and witnesses, denial of effective opportunity of defence, non-supply of the inquiry report and disproportionate and discriminatory punishment. The applicant has accordingly sought quashing of the impugned orders and grant of consequential benefits.
The principal question which arises for our consideration is whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant and the consequential orders of penalty can be sustained in law, particularly when the applicant alleges that the charge memorandum did not contain the requisite particulars, the relied-upon documents and witnesses were not furnished, the Inquiry Officer concluded the proceedings without conducting a proper inquiry, and the inquiry report was not supplied to the applicant before imposition of penalty.
It is trite that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited. This Tribunal does not ordinarily sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and does not re-appreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible. However, judicial review is clearly attracted where the prescribed procedure has not been followed, where the delinquent employee has been denied a reasonable opportunity of defence, where the findings are based on no evidence or inadmissible material, or where the principles of natural justice have been violated. The limited scope of judicial review cannot, therefore, be understood to mean that procedural safeguards prescribed under the relevant disciplinary rules can be dispensed with.
Since this matter pertains to departmental proceedings, we deem it apt to observe that it is settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review. The Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
In this regard, it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749,wherein it has been held as under:
“13.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. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”
(emphasis supplied)
In another case in the matter of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while re-appreciating evidence, the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-
“13.Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i)reappreciate the evidence;
(ii)interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii)go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv)go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v)interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi)correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”
(emphasis supplied)
In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612,by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“22.The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority…………”
23.It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103] .
24.It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry 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 or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25.When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i)whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii)whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii)whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
(emphasis supplied)
26.It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27.It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28.The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
(emphasis supplied)
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563, emphasised about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -
"22.In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that recording of reasons is a facet of natural justice and ensures transparency and accountability in administrative action. The relevant paras of the same are reproduced below:-
"12.The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognised a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150] . xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
14.The expression “speaking order” was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of the writ of certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See pp. 1878-97, Vol. 4, Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the Report).
15.This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the “inscrutable face of a sphinx”.
In A. Masilamani Vs. LIC, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
“16.It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same.”
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 also throws light on the approach to be adopted but in a more nuanced manner than what was held in A. Masilamani (supra). Paragraph 8 of said decision reads as follows:
“8.There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient, either procedurally or otherwise, the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the authority concerned to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority or to the enquiry officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order. But that course may not have been the only course open in a given situation. There may be situations where because of a long time-lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand.”
(emphasis supplied)
Further in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, in para 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"23.Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of self same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof."
(emphasis supplied)
The ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority perform quasi-judicial functions and Orders imposing punishment have serious civil consequences. Therefore, reasons must be recorded. A cryptic affirmation of the Inquiry Officer's report is unsustainable.
The sum and substance of above guiding observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment is that recording of reasons is part of natural justice. Reasons ensure transparency and fairness. Absence of reasons renders the order arbitrary and vulnerable to judicial review. Thus, Every quasi-judicial authority affecting rights of parties must pass a speaking order.
In the present case, the applicant was served with a Standard Form-5 memorandum dated 16.08.2020 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Since the proceedings were initiated for imposition of a major penalty, the requirements of Rule 9 assume significance. The charge memorandum is required to disclose the articles of charge along with the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and the relevant list of documents and witnesses proposed to be relied upon for proving the charges. These requirements are not empty formalities. They enable the delinquent employee to know precisely the case which he is required to meet and to effectively defend himself. Rule 9 (6) and (7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 reads as under:-
“(6)Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Railway servant under this rule and Rule 10, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up -
(i)the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge;
(ii)a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge which shall contain -
(a)a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Railway servant;
(b)a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.
(7)The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Railway servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Railway servant to submit a written statement of his defence within ten days or such further time as the disciplinary authority may allow.
Note: - If copies of documents have not been delivered to the Railway servant along with the articles of charge and if he desires to inspect the same for the preparation of his defence, he may do so, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the articles of charge by him and complete inspection within ten days thereafter and shall state whether he desires to be heard in person.”
In the present case, the specific contention of the applicant is that although the memorandum referred to the statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses, the relevant particulars in the said annexures were left blank and no documents or witnesses were actually specified or supplied to him. This contention has not been satisfactorily rebutted by the respondents by demonstrating from the record that the requisite documents and list of witnesses were, in fact, furnished to the applicant. On the contrary, the respondents have essentially relied upon the investigation material, the statements recorded during investigation and the written defence submitted by the applicant.
It is shocking that none of the authorities viz Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority or Revisionary Authority; applied its mind to the contention of the applicant that charge sheet itself is defective. For facility of reference, the charge sheet is as follows:-
“Statement of Articles of charge framed against Shri Mintraj S/o Sh. Wajir Singh.
ARTICLE „I‟
That the said Shri Mintraj S/o Sh. Wajir Singh while functioning during the period of 16.08.2020 have made false complaint and false allegation against his in-charge and mate.
ARTICLE „II‟
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Mintraj S/o Sh. Wajir Singh have made false complaint and false allegation against his In-charge and mate.
ARTICLE „III‟
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Mintraj S/o Sh. Wajir Singh have made false complaint and false allegation against his In-charge and mate.
Statement and imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the article of charges framed against Mintraj S/o Sh. Wajir Singh.
ARTICLE „I‟ made false complaint and false allegation against the In-charge and mate.
ARTICLE „II‟ SSE/P-Way/MHRG-Inquiry Officer.
ARTICLE „III‟ SSE/PW/CKD.
ANNEXURE „III‟
List of documents by which the article of charge framed against Shri ……. Are proposed to be sustained.
ANNEXURE „IV”
The above reveals that there is neither any Annexure-III or Annexure IV with the charge sheet which contains the details of list of documents and list of witnesses. This shows the disdainful approach of the above authorities and their gross contempt for Rule of Law.
The distinction is material. The disciplinary authority could certainly take into consideration material which was legally brought on record in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However, material collected during an investigation cannot automatically become substantive evidence in the disciplinary inquiry merely because it finds mention in the departmental record. Where the employee disputes the allegations and the disciplinary authority proposes to rely upon statements or other material against him, the employee must be afforded the opportunity contemplated under the applicable disciplinary rules to meet such material.
The respondents have sought to overcome this infirmity by contending that the applicant himself admitted the substance of the allegations in his written defence. We are unable to accept that contention in the manner in which it has been projected. The applicant’s written representation before the Inquiring Officer, as reproduced from the record, states that he had joined the complaint on the basis of hearsay and under the influence of other gang members, that he had no ulterior motive and that he regretted his conduct. Such a statement may constitute an admission of having signed or participated in the complaint without verification, but it cannot, without further examination, be treated as an unequivocal and unconditional admission of the specific charge that he had deliberately made false allegations against his superior officials with the intention of causing prejudice to them. Even this position does not alter the action of the respondents in Departmental Enquiry, issuing a charge sheet and initiating disciplinary action without list of documents and list of witnesses. The statement given by the charged official before the Inquiring Officer is a subsequent activity and happened after issuing of the charge sheet to him.
The distinction becomes even more important because the applicant has specifically alleged that he was called by the Inquiry Officer on one occasion and was emotionally pressurized to admit the charge on the impression that nothing adverse would happen to him. Once such an allegation was specifically raised, the respondents could not merely rely upon the expression “pleaded guilty” and dispense with the safeguards of the prescribed inquiry procedure, unless the alleged admission was clear, voluntary and unequivocal.
The Inquiry Officer, according to the material referred to before us, recorded that the applicant had confessed to making false allegations and was ashamed and feeling guilty. However, the applicant disputes the manner in which such alleged confession was recorded. In these circumstances, the alleged admission itself required careful consideration and could not, in our view, be mechanically treated as conclusive proof of the charge.
There is another substantial infirmity in the proceedings. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report/findings dated 18.09.2020, but the applicant contends that the said report was never supplied to him before the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the penalty. The respondents have not demonstrated that the inquiry report was supplied to the applicant and that an opportunity was afforded to him to submit his representation against the findings recorded therein.
The supply of the inquiry report, particularly where the Inquiry Officer has recorded findings adverse to the delinquent employee, is an important component of a fair disciplinary process. The delinquent employee is entitled to know the reasons and findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and to make an effective representation before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision. The disciplinary authority cannot deprive the employee of such opportunity and thereafter contend that the employee had already submitted a defence at an earlier stage.
In the present case, the sequence of events assumes significance. The charge memorandum was issued on 16.08.2020; the Inquiry Officer is stated to have concluded the proceedings on 17.09.2020; the report was submitted on 18.09.2020; and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty on 22.09.2020. The proximity of these dates, coupled with the admitted fact that the applicant was not supplied with the inquiry report before the penalty was imposed, reinforces the applicant's contention that no meaningful opportunity was afforded to him to contest the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
We also find substance in the applicant’s grievance regarding the appellate order. The applicant had specifically raised several grounds in his statutory appeal, including non-supply of documents, denial of effective opportunity of defence, improper conduct of inquiry, non-supply of the inquiry report and disproportionality of punishment. The appellate authority was required to consider these grounds and record reasons for accepting or rejecting them. An appellate authority exercising statutory powers in disciplinary proceedings is expected to apply its independent mind to the grounds raised before it. A cryptic affirmation of the penalty, without dealing with the material grounds raised by the delinquent employee, does not adequately discharge that obligation.
The respondents have contended that the appellate authority had considered the matter and that the reviewing authority subsequently reduced the penalty from withholding of increments for three years to withholding of increments for two years. The reduction of punishment, however, cannot by itself cure a fundamental defect in the disciplinary process. The question of proportionality of punishment arises only after the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law. A reduced penalty cannot validate proceedings which are otherwise vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity.
We are also of the view that the plea of discrimination raised by the applicant requires consideration. It is the specific case of the applicant that two other employees, namely, Vikash Kumar and Umesh Kumar, who were working at the same place and were associated with the same complaint, were proceeded against with minor penalty charge-sheets and were awarded the penalty of withholding of increments for two years, whereas the applicant was initially visited with the substantially higher penalty of withholding of increments for three years, subsequently reduced to two years with further effect.
The principle that similarly situated employees involved in the same incident should not ordinarily be subjected to discriminatory treatment in the matter of punishment is well settled. At the same time, parity in punishment is not automatic merely because employees are connected with the same incident. The nature of the individual role, the specific charge established against each employee and other relevant circumstances may justify different treatment. However, where the charges and allegations are substantially identical, the disciplinary authority is required to explain why one delinquent employee has been subjected to a materially different punishment from others similarly placed.
In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Raj Pal Singh, JT 2001 (Suppl. 1) SC 44, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized that where the charges are the same and identical and relate to one and the same incident, differential treatment in the matter of punishment may attract the vice of discrimination. The said principle cannot be mechanically applied in every disciplinary matter, but it certainly requires the competent authority to examine the question of parity where such a specific plea is raised.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment dated 01.04.2026 passed in SLP No. 2900/2020 in the matter of Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors., has observed as under:-
“8 See: AIR 1963 SC 1914: (1964) 3 SCR 616: 1963 SCC OnLine SC 97 (Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. Vs. Workmen)
“4.… An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined -- ordinarily in the presence of the employee -- in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report. In the present case the persons whose statements made behind the backs of the employees were used by the inquiring authority were not made available for cross examination but it would appear that they were not even present at the inquiry. It does not even appear that these reports were made available to the employee at any time before the inquiry was held. Even if the persons who made the reports had been present and the employee given an opportunity to cross examine them, it would have been difficult to say in these circumstances that that was a fair and sufficient opportunity. But in this case, it appears that the persons who made the reports did not attend the inquiry at all. From whatever aspect the matter is examined it is clear that there was no inquiry worth the name and the tribunal was justified in entirely ignoring the conclusion reached by the Domestic Tribunal.”
9 See: (2008) 8 SCC 236 (State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh)
“15.From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge:
1.The inquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the inquiries do not become empty formalities.
2.If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the inquiry or if the inquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the inquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the inquiry officer, during the inquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an inquiry is assigned to some other officer.
3.In an inquiry, the employer /department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workmen / delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workmen / delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.
4.On receipt of the inquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary / punishing authority to supply a copy of the inquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the inquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any.”
In the present case, the respondents have not placed before us sufficient material to demonstrate the precise distinction between the role attributed to the applicant and that attributed to the two other employees who were allegedly dealt with by imposing minor penalties. The appellate/reviewing orders also do not appear to have adequately dealt with this specific plea of discrimination. Consequently, this aspect further demonstrates non-application of mind at the appellate stage.
We are constrained to state that this is an approach by which Disciplinary Authority first issues a charge sheet which is ab initio void and initiate disciplinary action, follows it up with imposition of punishment, the Appellate Authority rejects the appeal and confirms the punishment and Reviewing Authority without due application of mind decided the review petition. This approach of handling disciplinary matter is condemned with all the force at our disposal and we express our strong displeasure for such work ethics. All the respondents need to take action to train staff under them to handle disciplinary matters.
We are conscious of the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant himself admitted that he had joined the complaint on the basis of hearsay and subsequently expressed regret. However, an employee’s admission that he acted without verifying the facts does not necessarily dispense with the requirement of establishing the precise misconduct charged against him, particularly when the charge alleges that he deliberately made false allegations and thereby committed misconduct involving disloyalty towards duty.
The respondents have also relied upon the RPF investigation, according to which the alleged railway material had not been stolen but had been shifted from Level Crossing Gate No. 23 to Gate No. 24. This material may constitute relevant background material. Nevertheless, the fact that the alleged theft was not ultimately established does not, by itself, establish that the applicant deliberately made a false complaint. The latter allegation involves an additional element concerning the applicant’s knowledge, conduct and intention. The disciplinary authority was therefore required to establish the charge in accordance with the prescribed procedure and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant.
The respondents’ contention that this Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence is undoubtedly correct as a general proposition. But the present case, in our considered view, does not require us to undertake a re-appreciation of evidence. The interference is necessitated by the procedural deficiencies apparent from the record, namely, the failure to establish that the documents and witnesses forming the basis of the charge were duly disclosed, the failure to furnish the inquiry report before the penalty was imposed, the treatment of the disputed statement as an unequivocal confession, and the failure of the appellate authority to adequately consider the material grounds raised by the applicant.
We may also observe that the plea of the respondents that the applicant was given an opportunity because he submitted a written defence cannot be accepted as a complete answer to the grievance of denial of natural justice. The opportunity at one stage of the proceedings cannot substitute for an opportunity specifically required at a subsequent and material stage. The applicant was entitled to meet the findings of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority took the final decision, particularly when those findings were adverse to him.
On a cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the penalty orders cannot be sustained in their present form. The defects are not merely technical or inconsequential. They relate to the very opportunity available to the applicant to defend himself against the charge. The subsequent reduction of the penalty by the reviewing authority does not cure these foundational defects.
In view of the above, the present O.A. is allowed with the following directions:-
The impugned orders dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure A-1), 05.11.2020 (Annexure A-2) and 03.08.2021 (Annexure A-3) are hereby quashed and set aside. It is clarified that the correct date of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is 05.11.2020, which is annexed as Annexure A-2, and that the date of the said order has been wrongly mentioned as 21.10.2020 in para 8.2 of the relief clause. In the pleadings before us, Annexure A-7 dated 21.10.2020 is an appeal preferred by the applicant against the order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure A-1).
In the event, the applicant shall be entitled to consequential service benefits flowing from quashing of the impugned penalty, subject to the applicable rules.
The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 06 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Pending M.A. (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Before parting with the matter, we deem it appropriate to observe that learned counsel for the applicant should exercise due care and caution while mentioning the dates of various orders and proceedings in the Original Application. Accurate and consistent mentioning of dates is essential for proper appreciation of the chronology of events and for avoiding any ambiguity or confusion in adjudication of the matter. Learned counsel is, therefore, advised to verify the dates from the original records before incorporating the same in the pleadings.