Bombay High Court
Union Of India Through Chief ... vs Balwant Ramashankar Singh S/O Late Shri ... on 21 August, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:33540-DB
907-WP.11117.2024
Jvs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11117 OF 2024
Union of India, through Chief }
Commissioner of Customs & Anr. } Petitioners
versus
Balwant Ramashankar Singh } Respondent
Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Niranjan Shimpi for petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Walia with Ms. Asmita
Pendharkar for respondent.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
AMIT BORKAR, J.
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2024.08.22
10:17:25
+0530
DATE: 21st AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Apte, learned senior advocate, assisted by
Mr. Niranjan Shimpi, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.Walia, learned counsel representing the respondent.
2. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. We proceed to
dispose of the petition finally.
3. Under challenge in this petition is the judgement and order
dated 4th May 2023 passed by the Mumbai Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal"), whereby Original Application No. 429 of 2019 filed by
the respondent herein has been allowed and the order of
907-WP.11117.2024
punishment dated 11th November 2016, whereby the pay of the
respondent was reduced by two stages w.e.f. 1st December 2016
for a period of two years and the appellate order dated 12th
September 2018 have been set aside.
4. On certain charges, it appears that the departmental
inquiry was instituted against the respondent. Based on the
inquiry, a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, dated 8th
October 2015, wherein the allegations against the respondent
were not found proved, however, the Disciplinary Authority
considered the inquiry report and recorded a disagreement note
dated 8th June 2016 expressing a view different from the view of
the Inquiry Officer recorded in the inquiry report and proceeded
further to pass the order of punishment on 11 th November 2016,
whereby pay of the respondent was reduced by two stages
w.e.f. 1st December 2016 for a period of two years.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of punishment dated
11th November 2016, the respondent preferred a departmental
appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by
means of the order dated 10th/12th September 2018. The
respondent, thereafter, filed Original Application No. 429 of 2019
before the Tribunal challenging the order of punishment dated
11th November 2016 and the order passed by the Appellate
Authority, dated 10th/12th September 2018.
6. The Tribunal, by means of the impugned judgement and
order dated 4th May 2023 has allowed the Original Application
thereby quashing the order of punishment dated 11th November
2016 and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority.
907-WP.11117.2024
7. The petitioners have, thus, challenged the said order
passed by the Tribunal on 4th May 2023 by instituting these
proceedings. It has been submitted by Mr. Apte, learned senior
advocate representing the petitioners that the Tribunal, while
setting aside the order of punishment and the appellate order,
has not assigned any reason as to why the disagreement note of
the Disciplinary Authority, where he had recorded his
disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, is
perverse. He has submitted that, in fact, the Tribunal, after
recording the respective cases of the parties pleaded before it,
has drawn a conclusion without giving any reason therefor,
whatsoever.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Walia, learned counsel representing
the respondent has argued that the Tribunal has recorded its
satisfaction that both, the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority, have materially erred in interfering with the
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, which is on appreciation
of the evidence on record. He further stated that no fault can be
found with the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned
order, which is under challenge herein.
9. Having considered the respective submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the competing parties, what we
find is that the Tribunal has completely failed to give any reason
whatsoever for arriving at its conclusion in the impugned
judgment. The Tribunal, after recording the submissions of the
respondent in paragraphs 2 to 8.5 of the judgment, further
records the submissions of the petitioners in paragraphs 9 to 12
and thereafter notices certain judgements and abruptly draws
its conclusion in para 15 of the impugned judgement. In
907-WP.11117.2024
paragraph 15 of the impugned judgement, the Tribunal records
that the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the
Inquiry Officer, has recorded a finding which was not supported
by any evidence. However, as to what evidence was available on
the record of the inquiry proceedings and in what manner the
evidence was considered and conclusions were arrived at by the
Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority respectively and
the reason for the Disciplinary Authority to have differed from
the Inquiry Officer, have not been discussed at all by the
Tribunal.
10. It is a case where the Disciplinary Authority, on conclusion
of the inquiry, took a view different from the view taken by the
Inquiry Officer and accordingly, recorded his disagreement on
the disagreement note dated 8th June 2016. If the Tribunal was
of the opinion that the reasons accorded by the Disciplinary
Authority for recording his disagreement in the disagreement
note dated 8th June 2016 were not tenable, the Tribunal was
expected to give reason therefor after weighing the evidence
available and gathered during the course of the inquiry. Merely
by saying that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary
Authority are not supported by evidence does not suffice. Any
adjudicating authority or Court or Tribunal has to record findings
giving reasons, especially when the findings recorded by the
subordinate Tribunal/Court/authorities are being overturned.
11. When we peruse the impugned judgement and order
passed by the Tribunal, we find that no such reason has been
recorded by the Tribunal to arrive at its conclusion as to how the
inference drawn by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby he had
taken a view different from the view taken by the Inquiry
907-WP.11117.2024
Officer, was perverse. For arriving at a conclusion of perversity
in findings, it is necessary for the Court/Tribunal to discuss and
weigh the evidence and after application of mind, draw a
conclusion as to how and in what manner there is perversity in
the findings recorded by the subordinate Court/Tribunal/
Authority.
12. Since the impugned judgement and order passed by the
Tribunal is bereft of any such reasoning, in our opinion, the
same is liable to be struck down.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned
judgement and order dated 4th May 2023 passed by the Tribunal
in Original Application No. 429 of 2019 is hereby quashed.
14. The Tribunal is directed to restore the Original Application
No. 429 of 2019 on its file and decide the same afresh in
accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove in
this pronouncement.
15. We also direct that the proceedings before the Tribunal
under this order shall be expedited and concluded, in any case,
within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced.
16. We also direct that the parties shall appear before the
Tribunal on 26th August 2024 and no further notice will be
required to be served upon them by the Tribunal.
17. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
