Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6831

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Ojha, Judicial Member, Pankaj Kumar, Administrative Member
Arun Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 332/00001/2017 In W.P. No. 3714/2000

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: Shri Anurag Srivastava, Smt.Prayagmati Gupta

Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to no evidence, natural justice violation, perversity, or mala fides; courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute punishment unless shockingly disproportionate.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Judicial review - Courts/Tribunals shall not reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact in departmental enquiries unless based on no evidence, perverse, violative of natural justice principles, or mala fide - Scope limited to checking procedural compliance, competent authority, relevant considerations, and reasonableness of conclusions - Punishment not to be substituted unless shockingly disproportionate. (Paras 6.1, 7.1-7.3)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Principles of natural justice - Opportunity to defend provided through charge sheet reply, document supply, witness cross-examination, enquiry report, personal hearing, and appeal consideration - Non-examination of certain witnesses not violative if no contemporaneous demand made and evidence otherwise sufficient - Defense assistant restricted to co-employee per rules. (Paras 6.2.2-6.2.4, 7.2)

(C) Evidence in departmental enquiry - Strict proof not required; findings sustainable if based on some evidence like witness testimonies, documents, and expert reports despite minor discrepancies or alibi pleas - Conspiracy allegations against multiple parties improbable absent proof. (Paras 6.2.5-6.2.8, 7.3)

Facts of the case:
Employee dismissed for issuing forged test certificates without records, collecting unauthorized fees, and defrauding management - Challenged suspension, charge sheet, enquiry, dismissal order, and appellate rejection alleging procedural lapses, no evidence, bias, and conspiracy.

Findings of Court:
Enquiry held by competent authority per procedure; principles of natural justice observed; findings based on testimonies of three witnesses, documents including test reports, payment statements, and signature verification report - Not a case of no evidence, perversity, or mala fides.

Issues: Whether enquiry findings based on no evidence; whether natural justice violated by non-production of certain witnesses/experts; whether proceedings perverse or mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal, applying Supreme Court guidelines, held evidence adequate (witness statements, documents, expert opinion); no procedural violation or perversity; conspiracy theory untenable; dismissal proportionate to misconduct of forging official documents causing institutional disrepute.

Result: Application dismissed; parties to bear own costs.

Table of Content
1. factual background of disciplinary proceedings (Para 2)

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’bleMr.Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

Aggrieved from being dismissed from service, the applicant has sought the following reliefs in this case:

“(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2000 communicated vide letter dated 08.06.2000 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 26.02.1999 as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition passed by Opposite Party No. 3.

(C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the Opposite Parties to allow the petitioner to continue to work and discharge his duties and responsibilities in the capacity of Senior Technical Officer in the office of the Opposite Party No. 3 and pay him his full salary and allowances each and every month as and when the same fall due.

(D) Issue such other order or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.

(E) Award costs of the writ petition.”

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant in August, 1978 in the Central Institute of Plastics, Engineering & Technology (CIPET, hereinafter),a premier institute imparting specialized training programmes in the field of plastic engineering & technology and providing testing services for plastic products to the plastic industry. While working as Assistant Engineer, he was issued a charge sheet dated 05.08.1997 for misusing his official position by issuing three test certificates without any record with the intention to defraud the management. The applicant replied to the charge sheet on 10.09.1997. An enquiry was conducted and the article of charges was found proved. The applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 26.02.1999 and his appeal rejected vide order dated 07.06.2000. Aggrieved, the applicant filed writ petition no. 3714 (S/B) 2000 before Hon’ble High Court which was transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2017 of Hon’ble High Court.

3.1 It is stated by the applicant that he was appointed as Technical Assistant at Chennai and was promoted as Assistant Technical Officer and thereafter as Assistant Engineer (now known as Senior Technical Officer) in November 1993. The applicant was suspended vide order dated 01.05.1997 (Annexure A-4, page 41). The charge sheet was issued on 05.08.1997 (Annexure A-5 page 42-48) and the reply was submitted on 10.09.1997 (Annexure A-7 page 50-56).

3.2 The documents were provided after repeated requests(AnnexureA-6, A-8, A-9& A-10). However, number of documents were never provided. On 22.12.1997 (Annexure A-12 page 67), the applicant requested for documents for proper defense.

3.3 It is stated by the applicant that on 06.03.1998 (Annexure A-14 page 73), he raised the plea of biasness against the enquiry officer and reiterated it on 21.03.1998 (Annexure A-15 page 74-82), but it was refused.

3.4 Vide letter dated 06.03.1998, the applicant also requested for engagement of an advocate or Shri V.N. Misra as his defence assistant.

3.5 It is contended that on 08.08.1998 (Annexure A-19 pages 91-126), the applicant submitted defense specifically indicating therein that the documents/test reports have been manufactured as during that period from 19.01.1996 to 29.01.1996, the applicant was on official tour. It was not appreciated that when the applicant was undisputedly on official tour from 19.06.1996 to 29.01.1996, the question of issuing test reports on 25.01.1996 does not arise. The applicant had denied that they had ever been issued by the applicant, which have been tried to be proved taking opinion from Government Department Examiner at the back of the applicant and the applicant remained unheard. The handwriting expert report was an unproven document and, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6831

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALAnil Kumar Ojha, Judicial Member, Pankaj Kumar, Administrative MemberArun Kumar Gupta – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentTransfer Application No. 332/00001/2017 In W.P. No. 3714/2000

Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to no evidence, natural justice violation, perversity, or mala fides; courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute punishment unless shockingly disproportionate.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Ojha, Judicial Member, Pankaj Kumar, Administrative Member
Arun Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 332/00001/2017 In W.P. No. 3714/2000