Courts do not act as appellate forums for disciplinary findings but may interfere if a punishment is disproportionate to the proven charges, requiring reconsideration if the penalty imposes excessive or unconscionable hardship in the given context.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner, wherein, he impugned an order of punishment imposed against him - producing it as Annexure A1 - holding that no cause for interference has been attracted.

2. Sri.K.V.Pavithran – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, even assuming that all the charges against his client are taken to be true, the punishment imposed – namely ‘withholding 15% of his monthly pension for a period of one year’ – is unjust, unconscionable and therefore, unconstitutional. He, explained that the allegation against his client was that he had used unfair and intemperate language in some of his representations made against his superior officers; but that his specific defence was that the Disciplinary Authority had personal vendetta against him. He showed us from the report of the enquiry, produced as Annexure A8, that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was that his client ‘had used language which was not courteous’ (sic) and that, read in the context it was issued, would amount to grave misconduct. He contended that his client had not published his representations or made it known to anyone else, but only to his superior officers and that his intent was therefore, only to bring to their notice what was really happening in the department. He prayed that, therefore, this Appeal be allowed and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal be set aside.

3. Sri.T.V.Vinu – learned Central Government Counsel, however, countered the afore submissions showing us that the language used by the petitioner was of such nature that it was designed to attack the integrity of the entire system and show every officer in bad light. He impressed upon us that the allegations made against the superior officers by the petitioner were of so grave nature, that it defies any reasoning and is in the nature of omnibus imputations, calculated to insinuate and cause disrepute. He then pointed that, in Annexure A8 Enquiry Report, all these aspects have been properly considered, which then led to the Disciplinary Authority to issue appropriate orders.

4. Sri.T.V.Vinu, thereafter, argued that, as mandated by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules of 1965, [CCS (CCA) Rules), Annexure A1 order has been issued ‘by order and the name of the President’ by the competent Authority of the Ministry of Communication; and that every issue had been incisively considered, while imposing the punishment. He insisted that when even the petitioner does not have a case that enquiry proceedings were not done as per the prescribed procedure and when he admits to the words he has used, the minimum punishment that could have been imposed against him is as reflected in Annexure A1. He added that this punishment was on the basis of an advice given by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and also after the Minister of State (Communication) – on behalf of the Honourable President, had opined that the proven charges require a suitable cut in pension under the provisions of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. He prayed that, therefore, this Original Petition be dismissed and the order of the learned Tribunal be sustained.

5. Before we proceed further to look into the merits of the matter, we must remind ourselves that in matters relating disciplinary action, this Court does not sit as an Appellate Forum, but only to verify whether the procedure has been properly followed and abided by. It is well settled in Administrative Law that, it is not the decision which is normally subjected to judicial scrutiny, but only the decision making process.

6. The petitioner has a case that the procedure followed for enquiry is not as per the statutory scheme. However, as limpid from the various materials available before us, we cannot find this to be justified or substantiated; but on