The decision of the Disciplinary Authority must be based on legal evidence and reasonable; the Court may interfere if the finding is based on no evidence or is unreasonable.

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. - The present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of order dated 17.02.2014, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 192 of 2013; whereby the learned Tribunal upheld the order dated 19.12.2012, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the Petitioner.

2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present Writ Petition are adumbrated hereinbelow: --

(i) The Petitioner was appointed to the Group A Service of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, on 10.06.1997. After the successful completion of his training, the Petitioner was posted to Economic Offences Wing, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai in the year 1998 as the Deputy Superintendent. The Petitioner was thereafter transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Central Bureau of Investigation, Guwahati in the year 2001, and thereafter to Economic Offences Wing, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, in the year 2004.

(ii) Whilst the Petitioner was posted in the Economic Offences Wing, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai, he was entrusted with an investigation into a case RC-07(E)/2000-Chennai registered on 19.12.2000, under sections 409 and 420 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 6 and 13 read with section 25 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FCRA’), upon a complaint received from the Director, FCRA, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (FCRA Division), New Delhi, in relation to misappropriation of foreign donation and funds of more than Rs.14,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crores). The said RC-07 (E)/2000- Chennai was registered inter alia against Mr. P.K.S. Madhavan, Chairmain-cum-Chief Functionary of an NGO in Hyderabad, named “AWARE” (Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment), as well as against other unknown persons.

(iii) The Directors of NGO “AWARE” (hereinafter referred to as “the NGO”) were examined by the Petitioner in April, 2001.

(iv) In pursuance of the investigation, the Petitioner along with Constable Mohd. Aslam travelled to Vishakhapatnam during the period from 23.05.2001 till 26.05.2001. At Vishakhapatnam, the Petitioner stayed at Hotel Dolphin and Constable Mohd. Aslam stayed at Hotel Prince. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved to Rajahmundry in pursuance of the investigation, where he stayed at Hotel Apsara.

(v) During the course of the investigation, substantial material was found and unearthed by the Petitioner against the NGO and the said P.K.S. Madhavan and thus, they were accordingly prosecuted under the law by the CBI.

(vi) On the 13.08.2001, approximately 03 months thereafter, a Preliminary Enquiry was initiated by the CBI against the Petitioner, on the basis of information of alleged misconduct by the latter, of availing pecuniary advantage from the NGO, during his visit to Vishakhapatnam from 23.05.2001 till 26.05.2001. Upon the conclusion of the Preliminary Enquiry, the CBI recommended initiation of proceedings for Minor Penalty under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “CCS (CCA) Rules”) against the Petitioner. The matter was then referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “CVC”) for First (1st) Stage Advice. The CVC vídé its First (1st) Stage Advice recommended initiation of Major Penalty Proceedings against the Petitioner as well as against Constable Mohd. Aslam.

(vii) In accordance thereof, the Disciplinary Authority ordered Major Penalty Proceedings against the Petitioner. However, it is pertinent to observe that Constable Mohd. Aslam was let off with a minor penalty of censure.

(viii) On 27.01.2004, the Petitioner was served