Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to process and natural justice; no re-appreciation of evidence or interference with punishment unless shocking to conscience or based on no evidence.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(i) To issue order and direction to quash the impugned order punishment order dated 06-05-2011 (A-1) and impugned appellate order dated 26-07-2011 (A-2) and impugned revisional order dated 12-10-2011 (A-2a) with all consequential benefits.

(ii) To issue order or direction to restore the original post, pay and grade of the applicant with all consequential benefits and to provide all the benefits of the period of punishment to the applicant.

(iii) To issue another order or direction as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(iv) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was posted as Technician-1 under the respondents in striping shop. On 20.11.2009, the Senior Vigilance Inspector inspected the striping shop and prepared a joint note alleging that during the preventive check, 15 blank fake medical certificate were found in the table drawer which were duly stamped by Dr. Nitin Kumar which indicated the possibility of misuse by the applicant. Thereafter, a major penalty charge sheet dated 22.02.2010 was issued against the applicant and an inquiry was conducted. In the inquiry report dated 28.02.2011, the charges were proved against the applicant. The applicant moved a representation dated 04.04.2011 before the disciplinary authority against the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reversion from technician grade-I pay scale Rs.5200-20200+2800 Grade pay to technician grade -II grade pay Rs.2400/- pay scale Rs.5200-20200 for two years with cumulative effect by order dated 06.05.2011. Against the punishment order, the applicant filed an appeal dated 22.05.2011 which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 26.07.2011. Then a revision petition was filed by the applicant after which on 22.08.2011 the revisional authority reduced the punishment period from two years to 18 months.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the vigilance inspector has falsely implicated the applicant without any prior complaint and obtained the signature of the applicant and other staff under pressure. He argued that the alleged table had never been allotted to the applicant. The applicant has alleged that during the preventive check, the vigilance inspector directed him to open the drawer and directed to prepare the list of found materials and to sign the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the statements of the prosecution witnesses and argued that it has been submitted by them that the vigilance inspector obtained signature under pressure during preventive check, the above drawer was not locked, the applicant was never found making the medical certificate and issuing them to any employee, the medical certificates were blank and that no complaint was received against the applicant. He also argued that the vigilance inspector has also admitted in answer to question no.6 that the applicant was not earning any illegal money by issuing fake medical certificate and also admitted in answer to question no.8