Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural legality; the Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment unless findings are perverse.

ORDER

Delivered by Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri S.K. Singh Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-

i. The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 15.3.2011 issued by the Senior Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi / the Respondent no. 3/5 (Annexure A-1) , enquiry report communicated with show cause notice by Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure A-2), order of penalty / NIP of reduction in the same time scale passed vide Order dated 27.12.2011 passed by Sr. D.P.O./ N.E. Railway, Varanasi (D.A.) (Annexure A-3), appellate order passed by ADRM N. E. Railway, Varanasi dated (Annexure A-3), modified order passed by appellate authority vide order dated 08.1.2013 (Annexure A-4) and revisionary order passed by revisionary authority / CPO vide letter dated 23.7.2013 (Annexure A-5) and give all consequential benefits as if no impugned orders were not passed ever against the applicant with all other consequential benefits.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the pleadings on record, are that:

3.1 The applicant was working as Office Superintendent Grade–II in the pay scale of Rs. 9300–34800 and was dealing with cases relating to compassionate appointment under the control and supervision of the respondents. During the processing of compassionate appointment of Shri Raj Kishor Ram, son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Ram, a complaint was received alleging discrepancy regarding two dates of birth and two High School certificates.

3.2 The applicant brought the said complaint to the notice of the higher authorities, whereupon an inquiry was ordered and conducted by Shri Deep Narain Ram, Personnel Inspector Grade–I, who submitted his inquiry report dated 12.04.2006. In the said report, it was recorded that Shri Raj Kishor Ram had passed the High School Examination only once in the year 1994 and his date of birth, as per the High School certificate, was 15.07.1978. The inquiry report did not establish that he had passed the examination twice or possessed two different dates of birth.

3.3 On the basis of the inquiry report of the Personnel Inspector and the affidavit dated 12.04.2006 submitted by Shri Raj Kishor Ram affirming his date of birth as 15.07.1978, the competent authority processed the case and issued Office Order No.118/2006 dated 28.08.2006, appointing Shri Raj Kishor Ram on compassionate ground with effect from 01.09.2006. The applicant had placed the matter before the competent authority on the basis of records and inquiry report available on file.

3.4 Thereafter, a vigilance inquiry was initiated in the matter and statements of the applicant, Shri Raj Kishor Ram and Shri Deep Narain Ram were recorded. In their statements, it was reiterated that Shri Raj Kishor Ram had passed High School only once in the year 1994 and his date of birth was 15.07.1978. Despite this, after a lapse of about four years from the date of appointment, a major penalty charge sheet dated 15.03.2011 was issued to the applicant alleging concealment of facts regarding two school certificates and violation of Rule 3.1(i) and (iii) of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

3.5 The applicant submitted his reply denying the charges and stating that he had highlighted the complaint at the earliest stage and had ensured an inquiry by the Personnel Inspecto