Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7114
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Anjani Nandan Sharan, JJ
Raj Kishori – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 430 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Subodh Pandey
For the Respondents: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited, primarily examining adherence to natural justice and lack of evidence, without reassessing the validity of established charges.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Challenging a disciplinary order leading to compulsory retirement - The applicant's husband was found guilty of misconduct and faced disciplinary action culminating in compulsory retirement; the husband's appeal against the punishment was dismissed through various orders - The main issue was whether the applicant could challenge orders after a significant delay and without compelling evidence of procedural violations. (Paras 2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice were alleged to have been violated, but no evidence was presented to prove prejudice. (Paras 5, 13)
(C) Scope of Judicial Review - The Tribunal emphasized that its review was limited; it cannot reassess evidence or findings made in disciplinary proceedings unless fundamental errors are evident. (Paras 12, 13)
Findings of Court:
The impugned orders were found to be sound, and no justifiable grounds were shown to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The core issues involved challenges regarding the timeline of appeals, the validity of disciplinary actions taken in the absence of evidence posthumously, and the adherence to natural justice protocols.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the integrity of the disciplinary process, reaffirming that judicial review is restricted and applicable only under significant procedural flaws.
Result: The original application is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of previous disciplinary actions taken against deceased employee. (Para 4 , 5) |
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2 The instant original application has been filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- "(I) to issue an order or direction in the suitable nature of certiorari to quash the speaking order dated 02.08.2018 passed by respondent no. 1(Annexure A-1) and quash the order dated 08.09.2003 passed by respondent no. 4 through which punishment order has been passed, subsequently appellate order dated 30.03.2004 passed by respondent no. 3 and revision order dated 25.01.2005 passed by the respondent np. 2 (A-2, A-3 and A-4)
respectively.
(ii) to issue an order or direction in the suitable nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits.
(iii) to issue other and further order or direction in suitable nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) award the cost of the petition to this petitioner.
3. During the pendency of Original Application, applicant, who is wife of the deceased employee died and was substituted by her legal heirs.
4. The brief facts as narrated in the Original Application is that the husband of the original applicant was initially appointed in the office of respondents as Casual Labour and thereafter, he was regularized. A charge- sheet dated 28.05.2002 was served upon him with a charge that the husband of the original applicant was found drunken and used unparliamentarily language during duty hours.
PUNIT KUMAR 4.1 Subsequently, an enquiry proceeding was initiated and MISHRA concluded on 31.12.2002 and same was also informed the husband of the original applicant, seeking reply by way of representation. In view thereof, the husband of the original applicant submitted his representation on 29.01.2003. However, the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the inquiry report dated 31.12.2002, passed the order dated 08.09.2003, by which, the husband of the applicant was compulsorily retired from services.
4.2 Aggrieved by the same, the husband of the original applicant preferred an appeal before the respondents on 01.01.2004. On 09.02.2004, the respondents made some comments for relaxing the punishment. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the husband of the original applicant vide order dated 30.03.2004. Against which, the husband of the original applicant preferred a Revision petition before the on
20.04.2004, but the same stood dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2005.
4.3 Subsequently, the husband of the original applicant approached before the respondents for reinstatement in services, but no heed was paid. In the meanwhile, the husband of the original applicant died on 15.05.2006. After the death of the husband of the original applicant, she continuously pursued the case before the respondent against the punishment orders and a Mercy Appeal against the aforesaid orders has been filed by the applicant on 30.03.2010, but the respondents sitting tight over the matter.
4.4 Again, the original applicant made again a representation on 10.05.2016 followed by a reminder dated 18.11.2016. Ultimately, the original applicant received letter dated 08.09.2016 and 01.12.2016, by which the original applicant was informed that the husband of the original applicant has availed all the departmental remedy and all the applications were rejected. However, the original applicant again represented before the respondents on 26.08.2017 and in reply, the respondents have passed the order dated 02.08.2018, by which the claim of the original applicant was rejected being time barred.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned orders dated 02.08.2018, 08.09.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, order dated 30.03.2
