Judicial review of disciplinary orders is limited to instances of manifest perversity or illegality. Procedural lapses, such as the omission of a second show-cause notice, do not invalidate an order unless the delinquent proves actual prejudice resulted from the omission.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of judicial review - Power to interfere with administrative orders is limited to cases involving apparent error, perversity, or lack of jurisdiction - It cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence or substitute the court’s opinion for that of the disciplinary authority. (Paras 26, 27, 28)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Disciplinary Enquiry - Findings of enquiry officer - Requirement of recording reasons and providing opportunity to represent applies only when a disciplinary authority diverges from a finding of non-proven charges - Non-issuance of a second show-cause notice does not automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings; the delinquent must demonstrate actual prejudice caused by such absence. (Paras 31, 33, 41, 42, 43)

Facts of the case:
The employee, an audit team member, was absent from duty without prior sanctioned leave. Upon being questioned by a senior officer, the employee cited a family medical emergency. The employee later submitted inconsistent and contradictory leave applications to cover the period of absence. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted, leading to a minor penalty of withholding a salary increment for one year. The employee challenged this penalty through administrative appeals and a tribunal, both of which were dismissed.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the tribunal correctly identified the employee's explanations for absence as improbable and inconsistent. The disciplinary authority’s findings were grounded in the established misconduct, and the minor nature of the punishment reflected a consideration of mitigating circumstances. No procedural violation or prejudice was established by the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority was required to grant a further opportunity to represent despite the lack of a finding of innocence by the enquiry officer, and whether the omission of a second show-cause notice rendered the disciplinary action invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement for further representation arises only upon disagreement with an enquiry officer's finding that a charge is not proved; where no such exoneration exists, the procedural challenge fails absent proof of actual prejudice. Appellate courts must not substitute their judgment for that of the disciplinary authority unless the decision suffers from manifest perversity.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual background and history of the disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. parties' contentions regarding the validity of the enquiry and punishment. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. defining the scope of judicial review under article 226 for disciplinary matters. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. application of legal precedents to findings of misconduct and procedural fairness. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
5. final adjudication and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 44 , 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.07.2017 passed in O.A. No. 051/00247/2015 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the original application has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition having been enumerated from the original application needs to be referred here which reads as under:

3. The applicant, the petitioner herein, while working as Senior Auditor in the office of Principal Accountant General (Audit) Ranchi, was deputed as a member of the Audit Team to conduct the audit of the office of the Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj, Palamu from 10.06.2010 to 17.06.2010. When the Deputy Accountant General (DAG in short) visited the office of the Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Palamu on 17.06.2010 he found the applicant absent from duty from 12.06.2010 without any formal approval. When an explanation was sought from him, he submitted that he had to rush to Ranchi as he got information in the night of 11.06.2010 from his wife that both his daughters were ill. The applicant contends that he informed the party-in-charge S. Prajapati verbally before leaving the Station though there is some ambiguity on this because there are also references that he did not inform the party-in-charge, rather he informed another person of the party.

4. The applicant further contends that he came back to Daltonganj on 16.06.2010 when he did verification of treasury vouchers, but inadvertently he could not put his initial in the said verification which he was supposed to do. Also, inadvertently he submitted a leave application from 17.06.2010 to 24.06.2010, whereas he actually intended to seek leave from 12.06.2010 to 25.06.2010.

5. Thereafter, the applicant was issued a charge memorandum under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules by order dated 04.08.2010 mentioning two articles of charges. Article-l stated that the applicant was deputed as one of the party personnel to conduct the audit of the office of the Superintendent, Palamu from 10.06.2010 to 17.06.2010. The DAG on his visit to the office on 17.06.2010 found the applicant absent from duty since 12.06.2010 without prior approval/sanction of leave from the competent authority. The Article-II stated that the applicant first sent an application on plain paper on 16.06.2010 (evening) for earned leave from 17.06.2010 to 24.06.2010 and not for the period from 12.06.2010 to 24.06.2010. Later when he was marked absent by the DAG he applied for earned leave from 12.06.2010 to 25.06.2010 on prescribed form on 28.06.2010 to cover up his unauthorized absence. Annexure-III of the charge memo gives a list of seven documents and Annexure-IV which is the list of witness mentions the single witness Shri Subhash Prajapati, Assistant Audit Officer who was the team leader of the Audit team.

6. Enquiry officer on 19.07.2011 submitted its finding and the disciplinary authority proceeded further for departmental enquiry and vide order dated 04.05.2012 inflicted punishment/ penalty upon petitioner by withholding one increment of pay for 1 year without cumulative effect.

7. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 617

Judicial review of disciplinary orders is limited to instances of manifest perversity or illegality. Procedural lapses, such as the omission of a second show-cause notice, do not invalidate an order unless the delinquent proves actual prejudice resulted from the omission.

Cases Referred (5)