The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and affirmed the permissibility of initiating inquiries by officers subordinate to the appointing authority.

1. Petitioner, while working as SA-I with effect from 29th September 1986, had put up a noting to his G.E. stating that M/s Haji Abdul Kabir Sumji, Contractor, was banned for the issue of tender for two years by C.E., Srinagar Zone. It was, however, found later on that there was no such ban imposed on the said Contractor. An enquiry was held and found that it was a wrong noting submitted by the petitioner wilfully. The Disciplinary Authority also held that the petitioner also did not even dispute having putting up of the said noting. Another charge against the petitioner is that he had put up noting regarding another Contractor, M/s Surjit Singh & Sons for the job of dismantling and mentioned that provisional sum for dismantling work is minus 50% even though the opening officers had clearly indicated the said percentage as minus 5% and this was recorded in words also by the officers. The petitioner in his noting to the G.E. had recommended that M/s Surjit Singh & Sons had given lowest tender for the job. But, after discussion with the G.E. on 25th August, 1988, it was found that said Contractor had not given the lowest tender, but the petitioner informed the C.E. that M/s Mohd. Saleem & Co. had given the lowest tender. This charge was also held proved in the enquiry. A vain attempt was, however, made by the petitioner by saying that the original noting having not been produced, this charge cannot be held proved against him. This, however, did not merit acceptance with the Disciplinary Authority and Revisionary Authority and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, i.e., reduction of pay by four stages from Rs. 2900 to Rs. 2600 per month in the time-scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 for a period of four years with immediate effect by order dated 23.2.1993. It was futher ordered in the order of penalty imposed that the petitioner will not earn increments or pay during the above reduction and that on expiry of his period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority, however, came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh at Circuit Bench, Jammu in O.A., but the same was dismissed in holding that the impugned orders are very reasoned orders and the punishment imposed in no way is on the higher side vide its judgment and order dated 14th July, 2000, which became the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner as projected in the petition is that his Disciplinary Authority is Engineer-in-Chief being Appointing Authority, the charges were required to be framed by the Disciplinary Authority and not by a Delegated Authority. The petitioner further claims that the charge-sheet could not be issued by an Authority lower than the Disciplinary Authority and, as such, all the proceedings against the petitioner having been vitiated, deserves to be quashed. Petitioner further pleaded that the noting of the petitioner dt. 4.2.1988 that constituted the basis for the charge-sheet, if read as a whole, will be in no way misleading. As regards the second charge, the department could not produce any document to prove during the course of the enquiry. That in the absence of the evidence, charges could not be held to be proved as per the Inquiry Report. That it has further been wrongly held by the Tribunal that it is not a case of no evidence. That when the petitioner was admonished and administered non-recordable warning by the G.E. and his ACRs were also spoiled for the year 1988-89, no charge-sheet could be issued to him on penalty on the same grounds of alleged misconduct.

3. The stand of the respondents explicitly delineated in their written reply is that Chief Engineer, Northern Command, is the competent Disciplinary Authority in the case of the petitioner. Directions were issued to the Zonal Chief Engineer to issue the charge-sheet. As pe