Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice; re-evaluation of evidence is not permissible.

ORDER

Delivered By:- Hon’ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 , the applicant has prayed for quashing the penalty order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4 and the appellate order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 and to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case of the applicant, in brief, are that while working in the Tatra Group of 508, Army Base Workshop, Cheoki, the applicant made a complaint against Commandant and M.D. 508, Army Base Workshop, Allahabad vide his application 03.12.2014 alleging that some army officers and army personnel had beaten him by using criminal force. Thereafter, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.12.2014 and he was served with a charge sheet dated 16.03.2015. On 12.05.2015, the applicant submitted his reply to the charge sheet denying the charges leveled therein and requested for holding an inquiry in accordance with law. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.05.2015, Col. (Dr.) Anand Kumar Pandey and Lt. Col. S.J. Singh were appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively. Before commencement of inquiry proceedings, the applicant vide his application dated 02.06.2015 requested the Inquiry Officer to engage one Shri Braj Mohan, a retired Assistant from 508, Army Base Workshop, Allahabad as Defence Assistant under Sub Rule (8) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 but the Inquiry Officer made a remark on his application that “the Defence Assistant as suggested will be put up to the Disciplinary Authority whereas as per CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, Shri Braj Mohan is already holding 7 cases at 508 Army Base Workshop” as Defenct Assistant. The applicant contended that such remark of the Inquiry Officer was wholly illegal being against the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 as Shri Braj Mohan was Defence Assistant only in two cases other than the case of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application dated 03.06.2015 to the Disciplinary Authority for change of Inquiry Officer on the ground of bias, but no order was passed on his application and Col. (Dr.) A.K. Pandey continued to hold the inquiry by allowing Braj Mohan as Defence Assistant.

3. The applicant contended that during the inquiry proceedings, inspite of the objection raised by the Defence Assistant, the Inquiry Officer allowed the unlisted state witnesses prior to giving the statement of the listed witnesses arbitrarily and illegally. It is also contended that the six documents were demanded by the Defence Assistant vide application dated 05.06.2015 but out of six, only two documents were supplied and four were denied by the Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 05.06.2015 hence, the applicant was denied of preparing his defence and this act was violation of his right to natural justice.

4. After examination of witnesses and after submission of written brief from both sides, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 29.09.2015 and a copy of same was forwarded to the applicant vide letter dated 03.10.2015 alongwith consolidated photocopies of comments on inquiry report. The applicant submitted his reply to the inquiry report on 21.10.2015. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice proposing major penalty of dismissal from service to the applicant vide order dated 06.01.2016. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 21.01.2016. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Au