Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD, JJ.
Arun Kumar Shukla, S/o Late Raj Kishore Shukla – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the Director General, Department of Post – Appellant
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4417 of 2011
Decided on : 17-01-2022
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965 – Rule 14 – Dismissal from service – Petitioner was charged of having purchased, out of his own fund, a plot of land in name of his widow mother while functioning as a Sorting Assistant, without previous information to prescribed authority and thereby violated provision of Rule 18 (2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thus, acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant – Based on some admitted facts, full-fledged enquiry was held, witnesses were examined and evidence was adduced – There is no material to take a view that there was any procedural lapse in holding departmental enquiry and petitioner was not given due opportunity of hearing in departmental enquiry – Petitioner has not levelled any allegation of malafide against Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, who have independently formed their respective opinions upon due appreciation of evidence available on record of departmental enquiry – Orders of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority cannot be said to be without application of mind – Findings do not suffer from perversity, inasmuch as, authorities have referred to presence or absence of evidence in support of respective charges – Absence of petitioner's duty has been regularized, with a rider that he shall be paid pay and allowances equivalent to subsistence allowance, which was being paid to him before removal from service and that said period shall be treated as on duty for the purpose of counting service for pension – Writ Application dismissed. (Paras 16, 25, 28, 29, 30, 35 and 37)
Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not interfere with conclusion of Disciplinary Authority unless finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence ordinarily need not be gone into by Court's exercising power of judicial review. (Paras 32)
JUDGMENT :
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
The judgment and order dated 23.04.2010, in O.A. No. 33 of 2003 passed by a Division Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act has been dismissed is under challenge in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. We have heard Mr. Chakrapani and Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Radhika Raman, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
3. The undisputed facts of the case are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the CCS(CCA) Rules] with the issuance of charge-sheet containing altogether six articles of charges which read as under :-
That the said Sri Arun Kumar Shukla while functioning as Sorting Asstt. HRO RMS 'U' Dn. Muzaffarpur is alleged to have purchased out of his fund a plot of land measuring 1 (one) Katha 1 (one) dhoor in the name of his widow mother Mosmat Yasoda Kuer on 31.01.1978 from one Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Sri Jaleshwar Prasad, vill. Kalyanpur, PS-Paroo Distt. Muzaffarpur in Mohalla Bramhapura PS-Brahmpura Distt. Muzaffarpur on the premium of Rs.4000/-without the previous knowledge of the prescribed authority and thereby violated the provision of Rule-18(2) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant. Thus Sri Arun Kumar Shukla is therefore charged for violation of provision of Rule 18(2) and Rule 3(i)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II
The said Sri Arun Kumar Shukla while functioning as Stg Asstt. HRO RMS 'U' Dn. Muzaffarpur/Platform Inspector, Muzaffarpur RMS during the period 1978 is alleged to have constructed a double storyed building "Kishoralaya Bhawan" in mohalla Brahmpura now known as mohalla Bibiganj on the land purchased in the name of his mother on a carpet area of 3268.44 Sq. ft at cost of about Rs.3,00,000/-three lacs) without ‘previous knowledge of the prescribed authority and thereby violated the provision of Rule-18(2) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also failed to reply when asked for the information in r/o above building vide this office letter no.B-3/725 dtd. 14.10.97 in utter violation of provision of Rule 18(4) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant.
Thus Sri Shukla is charged for violation of sub-rule 2 & 4 of Rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 3(i)(iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-III
That the said Sri Arun Kumar Shukla while functioning as Stg, Asstt. HRO RMS 'U'Dn. Muzaffarpur without having any authorised access is alleged to have kept in his personal custody copy of memo no.R&E-21/98 dtd. 17.11.98 issued by the Director Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur addressed to the undersigned and copy of reply thereto contained in Supdt. RMS 'U' Dn. Muzaffarpur letter no.B1-3/PT/98 dtd.23.11.98 and passed on them still unauthorisedly to press, the reference of which was got published by him in the column of daily news paper "Aaj" at page no.3 of 25th Nov. 1998 and thereby the said Sri Shukla is alleged to have failed to maintain devotion to duty and also acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant.
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla is thus alleged to have violated the provisions of Rule 201 of the Postal Man. Vol. III, Rule 11 and 3(i) (iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-IV
That the said Sri Arun Kumar Shukla while working as Stg. Asstt. in Muzaffarpur RMS/1 dtd. 21.10.97 during his duty hours is alleged to have left his office and duty without permission of competent authority came to HRO 'U'Dn. Muzaffarpur before the Accountant no.1, Sri Mahendra Thakur of HRO RMS 'U'Dn. Muzaffarpur at about 1330 hrs and asked him t
The proceedings of disciplinary action must comply with established procedural rules; failure to do so undermines justice.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
