Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9719
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Kamta Prasad Soni – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary/Director General, Ministry of Communication – Respondent
Original Application No.643 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S K Pandey
For the Respondents: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
The Tribunal upheld the disciplinary penalty against the applicant, emphasizing limited judicial review scope and procedural compliance in handling misconduct charges.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Disciplinary proceedings - The applicant challenged the withholding of 30% of his pension imposed after departmental inquiry for misconduct during recruitment processes involving nepotism; substantial compliance with procedural requirements was noted. (Paras 29, 27)
(B) Judicial Review - Limited scope in disciplinary cases - Courts do not re-appreciate evidence; findings must be based on sufficient evidence, and procedural fairness is paramount. (Paras 19, 12, 10)
Facts of the case:
The original applicant served as a Postal Assistant, faced disciplinary charges for nepotism in recruitment processes, leading to penalty post retirement. The inquiry concluded the misconduct despite procedural challenges from the applicant's side.
Findings of Court:
The penalty was justified based on inquiry findings; no substantial procedural violations were found in the inquiry process.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the handling of inquiry, delivery of the inquiry report, and the appropriateness of the imposed penalty following misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: Emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, the Tribunal upheld the disciplinary findings, highlighting a lack of evidence for procedural irregularities and confirming the appropriateness of the penalty imposed for misconduct.
Result: Original Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case highlighting inquiry processes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural delays and fairness. (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. legal principles on judicial review in disciplinary cases. (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 4. final judgment and dismissal of the application. (Para 29 , 30) |
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri S K Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. During the pendency of the Original Application, the sole applicant died and was substituted by his legal heir namely Smt. Geeta Soni.
3. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
8.1 This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Director (Vigilance-III) with all consequential benefits including promotions, re-fixation of pay, gratuity, leave encashment etc. as if no punishment was ever imposed against the applicant any other relief.
8.2 This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to pass such other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper and expedient in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as in the interest of justice.
8.3 This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to award cost of the Original Application to the applicant.
4. The brief facts as apparent from the record of is that the original applicant joined as a Postal Assistant in 1973, qualified IPO Exam in 1980, and was promoted to Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (hereinafter referred as ASPOs) in 1995. He served as Senior Postmaster, Mathura in between 24.03.2004 to February, 2005. The applicant was posted as Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Etawah in between the period from 2005 to 2006. Thereafter, he was transferred as Superintendent of Post Offices, Band and remained posted till 14.03.2009. Lastly, the applicant was transferred and joined at CSD, Kanpur in 2009 and discharged his duties till his retirement i.e. on 31.07.2010.
4.1 During the service period of the original Applicant, a charge- sheet for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued on 04.08.2008 by the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle. The applicant denied all the charges levelled against him vide his representation dated 12.08.2008. However, an Inquiry Officer was appointed on 14.10.2008. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.01.2010, but the copy of the report was furnished to the applicant only on 13.05.2014, which, over four years later from the date of inquiry report. The applicant submitted his comments/defence reply against the inquiry report on 15.05.2014. Thereafter, the case of the applicant was referred to Union Public Service Commission for its advise to the President, which was submitted on 28.09.2015.
4.2 The applicant submitted his defence reply to the advice of UPSC on 29.10.2014. However, the respondents passed an order on 14.03.2016, by which, 30% of the original applicant's monthly pension for 3 years was withheld. Hence, this Original Application has been filed, challenging the order dated 14.03.2016.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 03.02.2017, wherein, it has been submitted that during the course of annual inspection of Etawah Division on 01.11.2006, the then Director Postal Services, Agra noticed that the original applicant while working as SPOs, Etawah had worked as a Member of Recruitment Committee and selected his own son Shri Vinay Soni as PA, Etawah Division in Direct recruitment. Accordingly, a detailed inquiry was made over by the Asstt. Director (Vigilance), office of Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra, who submitted his inquiry report on 17.10.2007 to the Chief PMG, UP Circlle Lucknow vide letter dated 22.10.2007.
5.1 Thereafter, a charg
