Sh.K.K.Sangal vs Union Of India & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 2739 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P.(C) No.3623/2010
%
                           Date of Decision: 24.05.2010

Sh.K.K.Sangal                                                 .... Petitioner
                        Through Mr. Malaya Chand, Advocate.

                                   Versus

Union of India & others                                   .... Respondents
                   Through       Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be              YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported                 NO
      in the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th April, 2010

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in O.A.No.1753 of 2009, titled as 'Sh.K.K.Sangal v. Union of India

& others', dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner

challenging the Charge Sheet dated 29th August, 2003, the Penalty

Order dated 29th September, 2008 and the Appellate Order dated 29th

May, 2009.

The allegations against the petitioner were that a preventive check

was conducted by a team of officials of Headquarters Office/ New Delhi

on 15th April, 2003, while the petitioner was working as a Head TTE.

During the preventive check, the petitioner did not show his

Government cash and the private cash with him and rather ran away to

hide his misconduct of illegal money earned by him and also

deliberately tried to snatch the EFT Book from the possession of the

Vigilance team in which two foils of different serial numbers were torn.

The charges which were framed against the petitioner were as under:-

1. He non-cooperated with the Vigilance Team as he did not show his Govt. Cash, private cash and run away during the check to hide his misdeed of illegal earned money.

2. He deliberately tried to snatch the EFT book from the possession of the Vigilance team in which two foils of different serial numbers were torn.

3. He issued EFT in the nominated coach no.C-1 train No.4681 of another TTE (Sh.Darsh Singh/COR/UMB) deliberately to create artificial earnings of two persons instead of one to mislead the railway administration.

4. He refused to sign the seizure memo of the EFT book (132341 to 132 400) found in his possession during the vigilance check.

5. He refused to show his travelling authority as well as checking authority during the vigilance check.

6. He made an attempt to divert the attention of vigilance team by way of saying about jumping out of the train and also lodge an FIR."

After the enquiry, on the basis of evidence led before the enquiry

officer, it was held that all the charges were made out against the

petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, after examining the

report of the enquiry officer and the reply of the petitioner to the

enquiry report held that the petitioner was guilty of charge Nos.1 to 6

only and imposed the penalty of reduction in his pay from Rs.6800/- to

Rs.6650/- in the Grade of Rs.5000-8000/- by order dated 29th

September, 2008. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said

order was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 29th May, 2009.

Before the Tribunal, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that

the charges were not proved by the enquiry officer and out of eight

documents demanded by him only four documents were permitted by

the enquiry officer. The petitioner also contended that the punishment

imposed upon him is harsh and does not commensurate with his

alleged misconduct.

The pleas and contentions of the petitioner were refuted by the

respondents contending, inter-alia that full opportunity to defend

himself was provided to the petitioner and though the enquiry officer

held that all the charges were proved against him, however, after

considering the reply of the petitioner to the enquiry report, the

disciplinary authority has held that only charge Nos.1 & 6 were made

out against the petitioner.

The Tribunal noticed that the disciplinary authority took the

lenient view on charge No.6 and punishment was imposed in respect of

charge No.1. The plea of the petitioner that on the basis of the

testimony of PW2 even the charge No.1 was not made out against the

petitioner was repelled. The Tribunal has categorically held after

perusing the evidence of PW2 that case against the petitioner is of not of

no evidence and it cannot be said that the inferences arrived at by the

disciplinary authority were based on no evidence. The Tribunal also

relied on 'R.S.Saini v. State of Punjab and others, JT 1999 (6) SC 507',

holding that the Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction will not

reverse a finding of the disciplinary authority on the ground that the

evidence adduced before it is insufficient. It was held that if there was

some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the enquiry

authority, it is not the function of the Court to review the evidence and

to arrive at its own independent finding. The enquiry authority is the

sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to

substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence

is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court

in writ proceedings.

In the circumstances, it had been held by the Tribunal that the

findings of the disciplinary authority are neither perverse nor mala fide

and that prima facie there has been no violation of principles of natural

justice in conduct of the proceedings.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically

contended that it is a case of no evidence and the reliance has been

placed on the statement of PW2. The Tribunal had noticed that even on

the basis of evidence of PW2, it cannot be held that case against the

petitioner is of no evidence. If the vigilance team had not disclosed

about its status to the petitioner, from this fact it cannot be held that

the petitioner was not aware of vigilance raid conducted. Otherwise

there was no need for the petitioner to run away from the preventive

check and not showing the Government cash and the private cash

which was with the petitioner. In the circumstances, on the basis of the

entirety of the evidence, the plea of the petitioner that evidence of PW2

will not support the case of the department is not made out. On the

basis of preponderance of probability, it cannot be held that the

findings of the disciplinary authority about the charge Nos.1 & 6 made

out against the petitioner are perverse or without any evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to show as to

which documents were not supplied to the petitioner which had

prejudiced his case to such an extent that the entire disciplinary

proceedings against the petitioner are liable to the quashed. The

petitioner was a TTE in the train and in order to avoid the full

ramification of the illegality committed by him during the preventive

check, he ran away and did not show his Government cash and the

private cash with him. Considering the entirety of the facts and

circumstances, punishment of only reduction in his pay from Rs.6800/-

to Rs.6650/- in the Grade of Rs.5000-8000/- cannot be construed to be

not proportional to the misconduct attributed to the petitioner.

The charges before the disciplinary authority were not required to

be proved like criminal trial beyond reasonable doubt. The disciplinary

authority has taken a lenient view against the petitioner in respect of

Charge Nos.6 and a penalty of reduction of one year only has been

awarded to the petitioner in respect of Charge No.1. While drawing

inferences, the disciplinary authority has not taken into consideration

irrelevant facts or refused to consider the relevant facts, nor the

findings of the disciplinary authority are based on assumption as no

such plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The

findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be construed to be based

on surmises and conjectures and in the circumstances, there is no

ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of any such

illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order of the Tribunal, which

will necessitate any interference by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ

petition in the facts and circumstances of the case, is without any

merit, and it is therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MAY 24, 2010                                MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'