Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to procedural fairness and natural justice; no interference absent perversity or bias; facilitation of witness deposition not bias; repeated frivolous petitions constitute dilatory tactics.

O R D E R

Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A)

Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:

(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal

(b) quash and set aside the Order bearing No. NKR/VIG/DISC/1024/2021 dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure A1) passed by Second respondent;

(c) and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to introduce disputed document (ANNEXURE A6) through rightful custodian after given an opportunity to inspect original document.

(d) I further humbly pray to the Honorable Tribunal to direct the respondents to conduct the proceedings in a fair and impartial manner with the appointment of an unbiased Inquiry Officer

(e) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs in the interests of justice.

1. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the applicant on 30.06.2021, while he was working as Assistant Manager IPPB, Doddaballapur Branch, for indulging in activities like borrowing from his office colleagues and sub- ordinates by using his official position, thereby placing himself under undue financial obligation, which was likely to influence his performance of official duties.

At the behest of the applicant, IO was replaced twice and as things stood, finally 4^th Respondent was appointed as the IO. During the course of fresh Inquiry Proceedings being conducted by Respondent No. 4, the applicant felt that the IO was introducing disputed document, which in his view, lacked authentication, authority and custodianship. The applicant also felt that the Inquiry Officer was biased in favour of prosecution. Hence, he again requested for a change of the IO (third time) through his Bias Petition dated 23.11.2024 which was rejected by the 3^rd Respondent on 19.12.2024. He submitted the Review Petition to the Second Respondent on 23.12.2024. Since, the 2^nd Respondent also rejected the Review Petition on 07.01.2025, he has now approached this Tribunal, through this OA for relief.

2. Applicant

(i) The applicant, who is party-in-person, submits that Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him vide Memo No. NKR/VIG/DISC/1024/2021 dated 30.06.2021 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA Rules) 1965. The only charge against him was that while he was working as Assistant Manager IPPB, Doddaballapur Branch, he indulged in regular borrowing of amounts from his office colleagues and sub-ordinates by using his official position and thus placed himself under undue financial obligation to them which might influence his performance of official duties, thereby contravening the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules. He denied the charges levelled against him in the Memorandum of Charge.

(ii) The Respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. However, in view of the petitions submitted by him regarding bias on part of the two consecutive IOs, they were changed and finally the 4^th Respondent was appointed as the IO vide Order dated 18.04.2024 marked as Annexure A3. The Inquiry commenced on 27.05.2024 till its last sitting on 20.11.2024.

(iii) The applicant submits that on the sitting on 20.11.2024, the Presenting Officer introduced a disputed document listed as Serial No. 1 in Annexure A3. The applicant avers that the admissibility of this document was in violation of Rule 5(iii) of the Postal Volume 3. This document was merely a photocopy of an e-mail exchange, lacked an authorized signature or an authorized seal and had no authentication or custodianship. He submits that despite his vehement objections, the IO allowed the disputed d