The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of promotion eligibility in light of imposed penalties.

JUDGMENT

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.12.2018 issued by the disciplinary authority / DG, CRPF imposing penalty of censure upon the petitioner. (ii) Quash the order dated 19.12.2018 rejecting the

representation of the petitioner.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner in the rank of Deputy Commandant from the date the batch mates of

the petitioner were promoted to the said rank in 2010 pursuant to DPC held on 20.08.2009 for vacancy year 2009-10 with all consequential benefits and reckon eligibility of petitioner for the purposes of promotion in the rank of 21/C on that basis with benefits of seniority as well.

(iv) issue appropriate orders to find out reasons for delayed enquiry as a 7 year long time to finish the enquiry and issue final orders has resulted in taking away the promotion from a combatant which was due to him.

(v) issue any other writ/direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of this case.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts leading to the present case are as follows:

a) The Petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “CRPF”) on 04.01.1997, as a Sub-Inspector (General Duty). Pursuant thereto, on 03.10.2003, the Petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Commandant after qualifying in the Limited Competitive Departmental Examination held for the said post.

b) During the period from April, 2004 to November, 2006 – the Petitioner was functioning as Officer Commanding of D/54 Bn. CRPF. It is alleged that he committed a serious act of misconduct on 10.04.2006, wherein he disbursed the pay and supplementary TA/DA amount in respect of No.830730441 HC/GD Ram Bharose Yadav of his Coy to No.850849614 HC/GD J.M. Jha on authority slip though the latter was not authorised to receive the same. Further, when the HC/GD Ram Bharose Yadav requested for his dues, the Petitioner pressurized him to give authority slip to HC/GD J.M. Jha on a back date.

c) Subsequently, major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as “CCS (CCA) Rules”] were initiated against the Petitioner vide Presidential Memo dated 26.03.2009. The Presidential Memo is being reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference:

“ ARTICLE-I That the said Shri P R Jha, A/C, while functioning as Officer Commanding of D Company, 54 Bn CRPF during the period from April 2004 to November 2006 committed a serious act of misconduct in that on 10/04/06, with ulterior motive, he disbursed the pay and supplementary TA/DA amount in respect of No. 830730441 HC/GD Ram Bharose Yadav of his coy to No.850849614 HC/GD J M Jha on authority slip though the latter was not authorized to receive the same. Subsequently, when HC Ram Bharose Yadav requested for his dues, he harassed and pressurized him to give authority slip to HC JM Jha on back date. Thus, the said Officer misused his official position and failed to maintain devotion to duty thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLEL-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri P R Jha, A/C committed a serious act of misconduct in that when HC Ram Bharose Yadav reported about non-receipt of his pay and TA/DA amount, Shri PR Jha, in order to conceal his wrong doing, tampered with the signature / entries in disbursement register and cash book, by applying whitener, overwriting and cancelling entry etc. and returned the amount to main office o