In service matters, courts should not function as appellate authorities to re-examine evidence. Judicial interference is limited to ensuring due process was followed and administrative findings were not perverse. Subsequent statutory policies cannot be applied retrospectively, and penalties within prescribed rules are generally non-justiciable.

ORDER :

Sunil Beniwal, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 134/2010, whereby the OA was dismissed.

2. The brief facts, in a nutshell, which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed an Original Application (‘OA’) bearing No. 134/2010 challenging the order dated 01.05.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against her and a major penalty was imposed upon her, directing that she be demoted to the lower post of Vice Principal in the pay scale which she was drawing prior to her promotion to the post of Principal. Apart from this, she was debarred from further promotion till her retirement. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 02.03.2010, whereby the Appellate Authority affirmed the order dated 01.05.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

2.1 The OA filed by the petitioner was decided by the Tribunal, comprising two members, i.e. one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member, vide order dated 18.08.2011. The Judicial Member, Dr. K.B. Suresh, partly allowed the OA and, out of the five charges levelled against the petitioner, Charges No. 2 to 5 were quashed. However, in relation to Charge No. 1, it was held that the process of inquiry was not in accordance with law, and as a result, the punishments imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were quashed and set aside, while granting liberty to hold a fresh inquiry after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2.2 The second Member, Shri Sudhir Kumar (Administrative), did not agree with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Judicial Member and, therefore, gave a dissenting note holding that the inquiry had been conducted in accordance with law. He found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and held that the OA was liable to be dismissed.

2.3 In view of the conflicting opinions of the two Members, the matter was referred to the Third Member, i.e. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Rathore (Judicial Member). The Third Member agreed with the opinion expressed by the earlier Member, Shri Sudhir Kumar (Administrative), and, in view of the concurrence of the two Members in holding that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were in accordance with law, the OA filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

In the above given circumstances, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2012 (majority view), has preferred the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner appeared in person and made the following submissions :-

(i)- The Tribunal committed a serious error in affirming the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and, while doing so, completely ignored the most important and vital fact that the policy in force at the relevant point of time, i.e. in the academic year 2005-2006, clearly provided that, in no event, could a student be detained until the elementary classes were completed. Referring