Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural correctness; courts should not re-evaluate evidence or judgments made by administrative bodies.

ORDER

Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.10.2007, 03.03.2009 and 21.11.2008 (Annexure No.1,2 and 3) respectively passed by respondent No.4 and 3 respectively.

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the applicant to the post of Section Officer in pay scale of Rs.6500-10,500/- and pay him the entire arrears of salary with interest and assign him seniority etc. as if the order dated 8.10.2007 and 3.3.2009 as not been passed.

(iii) To grant all other consequential benefits for which the applicant is entitled to.

(iv) To issue any other writ order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) To award the cost of present petition in favour of the applicant. (vi) To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-3(A) to Compilation no.I).

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in the original application are that the applicant was initially appointed as Steno on 01.02.1982. His work and conduct has been very good and no disciplinary action has been taken except the present one. The respondent no.5 has been harassing the applicant on account of his complaint. The applicant was chargesheeted on 27.03.2003 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging that the applicant had submitted a false Travelling Allowance Bill. The applicant made a complaint against the respondent no.5 before Comptroller and Auditor General of India informing him about the activities of respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 called the applicant on 02.05.2003 and pressurized him to withdraw the complaint. The applicant tried to lodge First Information Report (F.I.R.) against respondent no.5 but he failed and ultimately he filed a criminal complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against respondent no.5. Summon was issued by the Judicial Magistrate to respondent no.5 and ultimately he directed to lodge an F.I.R. of the applicant against respondent no.5. Finally F.I.R. was lodged on 17.05.2004. The respondent no.5 got the applicant transferred to Samastipur to mount further pressure on him. He made a representation on 22.05.2003. However, an enquiry was conducted pursuant to the said chargesheet and the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved and ultimately vide order dated 29.10.2004 the Director of Audits dismissed the services of the applicant. The applicant filed an appeal before the respondent no.3 and his appeal was allowed and the order dated 29.10.2004 was cancelled as invalid and the applicant was reinstated w.e.f. 04.03.2005. However, by the said order the applicant was transferred and directed to join the Branch Office, Lucknow. Vide order dated 04.03.2005, the appellate authority did not quash the chargesheet and merely directed to conduct the proceeding afresh. However, when the applicant joined at Lucknow he was issued a fresh chargesheet dated 18.08.2005 on the ground that the respondent no.3 vide its order dated 04.03.2005 directed the disciplinary authority to conduct the disciplinary proceedings afresh. Respondent no.4 i.e. Principal Director of Audit, was not competent to issue chargesheet dated 18.08.2005 to the applicant as he is not the appointing authority of the applicant and respondent no.2 is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. A fresh cha