R. P. -Bhardwaj vs The Commissioner & Anr.

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:

The applicant was working as a Public Health Inspector Central Administrative Tribunal^{with the respondents. The respondents issued a memorandum} dated 02.03.2009 along with the statement of charges, allegations and list of witnesses and documents, proposing to hold a departmental enquiry against him. The applicant submitted his reply on 05.03.2009 denying the charges. After conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding the charge against the applicant as proved. The applicant submitted his representation against the said findings on 18.03.2015. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice proposing the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The applicant submitted his reply on 13.07.2015. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed the said penalty vide order dated 30.07.2015, notified on 20.08.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred an appeal on 31.08.2015, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.10.2015, notified on 10.11.2015. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

The Commissioner/MCD, vide letter No. PSC/845/2008 dated 30.10.2008, had desired an ATR with reference to Circular No. 864/Epid/08 dated 03.10.2008. Pursuant Central Administrative Tribunal^{thereto, the DHO/Narela Zone constituted a team comprising} Shri Hawa Singh, PHI, as In-charge, Shri Vinod Kumar, APHI, along with others, for collecting fines from the defaulters of Narela Zone.

The charge against Shri R.P. Bhardwaj, who was working as Public Health Inspector in the Health Department/Narela Zone is that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct inasmuch as he put obstacles/hindrance in the performance of official duties. It is alleged that on 21.11.2008 at about 2:30 P.M., at the main gate of the Zonal Office, Narela Zone, he snatched G-8 Book bearing No. 581001 to 581100 from the hands of Shri Hawa Singh, PHI, and thereafter ran away from the spot along with the said G-8 Book, for which he was held responsible.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charges were framed on the basis of the complaint lodged by Shri Hawa Singh, PHI. Pursuant thereto, a departmental inquiry was conducted and during the course of the inquiry, the statement of Dr. Ajay Handa, DHO, Health Department, Shahdara (North Zone) was recorded as PW-1. In his statement, he stated that he had constituted a team on 21.11.2008 comprising Shri Hawa Singh, PHI, as In-charge, Shri Vinod Kumar, APHI, Shri Subhash, Shri Devraj and Shri Rajesh, FHBs, for collecting fines from the defaulters of Narela Zone. At about 2:30 P.M. on 21.11.2008, all the team members left the Narela Zone office for collecting the fines. When the team reached near the main gate of the Zonal Building, Narela Zone, Shri R.P. Bhardwaj, PHI obstructed the team and snatched the G-8 Book bearing No.581001 to 581100 from the hands of Shri HAwa Singh, PHI and ran away along with the G-8 book. Thereafter, Shri Hawa Singh, PHI and the other witnesses reported the matter to him in writing on 21.11.2008. On the very same day, he reported the matter to Dy. Commissioner, Narela Zone. In reference to the C.O., he has stated as under ;

Further, Sh. Vinod Kumar, APHI, in his statement, has Central Administrative Tribunal^{submitted that he had gone through the report of Shri Hawa} Singh dated 21.11.2008 and he confirm the facts mentioned in document Ex. PW-1/B. According to him, there was no mention about the snatching of G-8 book in the note. The other two witnesses, Mr. Dev Raj and Mr. Subhash, Food Hygiene Beldar, submitted that they have no personal knowledge about the charges leveled against the C.O. in the matter.

However, Shri Hawa Singh, PHI, on whose compliant the inquiry was constituted, submitted in his statement that the CO had taken the G-8 book from his hands against his will on 21.11.2008 and obstructed him in performing his official duties, which he had to perform as per the directions of DHO/Narela. He further submits that the G-8 book mentioned in Ex. PW-1/B was issued in the name of Shri Vinod Kumar, APHI and he did not know whether Shri Vinod Kumar, APHI was working under the CP. Ex.PW-1/B was not written by him and the DHO asked him to put signatures and therefore, He put his signatures over Ex.PW-1/B. Originally, the words had been written snatched in Ex.PW-1/B, however, later on, when he said that the C.O. did not snatch from him rather took over back from him, then the words were changed from snatched to taken. On re-cross examination by the CO through his DA, he submitted that the snatched word in Ex.PW-1/B had been written by the DHO himself and thereafter on his insistence, he changed the words snatched to taken. I did not know whether the CO had the knowledge or not about the issuance of the G-8 book from him. However, he had also not shown the signature of Shri Vinod against the G-8 to the CO.

In the statement of Shri Rajnish, Beldar, he submits that the G-8 receipt book was lying on the table of the CO and Shri Hawa Singh, PHI lifted the G-8 receipt book from the table without the permission of the CO. On cross examiantino by the CO, he submits that he did not know as in whose name the G-8 receipt book was issued. He was also not aware about the custodian of G-8 receipt book. He knew Shri Vinod Kumar, APHI. He submits that it is wrong to suggest that the said incident had taken place on the main gate of zonal office.

In the analysis and finding of the Inquiry Report, the IO records as under :

Learned counsel for the applicant, while assailing the aforesaid charge, submits that the allegation that the G-8 Book was snatched by the applicant from the hands of Shri Hawa Singh is wholly incorrect. According to the learned counsel, the said book was not snatched, but was merely taken away, and therefore, the very foundation of the charge is factually incorrect. It is accordingly contended that the charge framed against the applicant cannot be sustained.

The respondents in the counter affidavit allege that on 21.11.2008, the applicant committed gross misconduct and breached official duty by obstructing an authorized team collecting fines and snatching the official G-8 receipt book (issued in the name of Shri Vinod Kumar, APHI) from team in-charge Shri Hawa Singh. They maintain that regular departmental inquiry was conducted strictly per applicable rules, providing full defense opportunity, and the charges stood proven based on five prosecution witnesses (including PW-1 Dr. Ajay Handa) and contemporaneous documents (Ex. PW-1/A & Ex. PW-1/B), alongside the applicant's own admission of taking the book. Consequently, the respondents contend that the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities passed reasoned penalty orders after due application of mind and consideration of all representations, rendering the OA without merit and liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the Original Application, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents as well as the inquiry report. We have also carefully examined the material available on record and the findings recorded during the course of the departmental inquiry.

The principal contention of the applicant is that he had not snatched the G-8 book from Shri Hawa Singh, PHI, but had merely taken it away from him. However, the applicant himself admits having taken the said book from Shri Hawa Singh, who was at the relevant time performing official duties as In-charge of the team constituted for collection of fines from the defaulters. In our considered view, the distinction between “snatched” and “taken away” does not absolve the applicant of the misconduct, as by taking the official G-8 book from the team In-charge during the course of the assigned duty, he interfered with and obstructed the performance of official duties.

The G-8 book was an official receipt book required for carrying out the aforesaid assignment, and the applicant had no authority to interfere with the functioning of the team or take away the same from its In-charge. The subsequent change of the word “snatched” to “taken” in the report, therefore, does not materially affect the substance of the charge, particularly when the applicant himself admits having taken the book. The finding that his conduct caused obstruction and hindrance in the performance of official duties is thus supported by the material on record.

We are also unable to accept the contention that the penalty imposed upon the applicant is disproportionate to the misconduct established against him. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Having regard to the nature of the misconduct, namely, interference with the performance of official duties, the penalty cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference by this Tribunal.

Further, it is well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. The Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings for those recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. Interference is warranted only where the findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or the proceedings suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice or any other material legal infirmity. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749, and Union of India & Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated these principles.

In the present case, the Inquiry Officer has considered the evidence available on record and recorded a finding that the charge against the applicant stood proved. The finding is supported by the material on record and cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. The applicant himself admits having taken the G-8 book from Shri Hawa Singh while the latter was performing official duties. The mere dispute as to whether the book was “snatched” or “taken” does not dislodge the finding that the applicant interfered with the performance of official duties. We, therefore, find no ground to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings.

As regards the quantum of punishment, the power of judicial review is even more restricted. In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interference with the punishment is justified only where the penalty is so disproportionate to the misconduct that it shocks the conscience of the court. The penalty imposed in the present case does not meet this threshold. Accordingly, no interference with the same is warranted.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no infirmity in the departmental inquiry or in the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the material on record and the applicant's representation, imposed the penalty, which was thereafter affirmed by the Appellate Authority. No ground has been made out for interference with the impugned orders.

The Original Application is accordingly devoid of merit and is dismissed. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.