K.K. Kothari vs Union Of India & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 2480 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3049/2011

                                              Date of order: 9th May, 2011

       K.K. KOTHARI                                 ..... Petitioner
                                Through   Mr. A.K. Trivedi and Mr.V. R.
                                          Sankar Advocates.

                       versus

       UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS                     ..... Respondents
                     Through

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?


SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

       By the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2009 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (Tribunal, for

short) O.A.No.95/2008 filed by the petitioner herein has been

dismissed.


2.     The petitioner was chargesheeted and awarded punishment of

reduction in lower pay-scale of Rs.3500-4590 for a period of three

years. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the penalty was modified

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3049/2011                              Page 1 of 3
 and the period was reduced to 18 months and until he is found fit, after

the said period, to be restored in the higher pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000.


3.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry

Officer had exonerated the petitioner.       This is correct, but the

disciplinary authority had issued note of disagreement to the petitioner.

Thereafter, following the procedure prescribed, the disciplinary

authority had held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct as on

11th December, 2003, at about 2.15 p.m., he had misbehaved with

Garage Superintendent by shouting at him and and told him to shut-up

and had used offensive and abusive language. He had rushed towards

the Garage Superintendent's room. In fact, immediately after the

incident preliminary inquiry was held and a report was submitted.


4.     Learned Tribunal has considered the findings recorded by the

disciplinary authority in paragraph 6 of the order impugned and dealt

with the contentions raised by the petitioner and has rejected the same.


5.     The disciplinary authority had relied upon the evidence of

Garage Superintendent and Devindra Narayana and by applying the

principle of preponderance of probability held that the petitioner was

guilty of          misconduct. The appellate authority examined the

contention of the appellant, but did not agree with him. However, as


WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3049/2011                             Page 2 of 3
 noticed above, the penalty was reduced from three years to 18 months

and until the petitioner is found fit to be restored to higher grade.


6.     Before the Tribunal it was contended that the preliminary

inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner, but this was found to

be factually incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue

that the factual findings by the disciplinary authority are incorrect. We

are not sitting in appeal and while exercising power of judicial review,

we are only concerned with the decision making process and not with

the merits of the decision itself. The present case does not fall in the

category of no evidence and the decision of the authorities cannot be

regarded as perverse as the orders have been passed after due

application of mind and on the basis of the material and evidence on

record.


7.     In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present

writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order

as to costs.



                                               SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

MAY 09, 2011 NA/VKR