Delhi High Court

Anoop Kumar vs Central Industrial Security ... on 4 May, 2012

Author: Anil Kumar

      *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Decision: 4.05.2012

+                        W.P.(C) No.4906/2001


Anoop Kumar                                         ...      Petitioner

                                     Versus

Central Industrial Security Force
& Anr.                                              ...      Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner       :      Mr.Inderjit Singh
For Respondents          :      Ms.Archana Gaur

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order of his

termination dated 13th May, 1999 and has also sought his

reinstatement in the service with all the consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts to comprehend the dispute are that the petitioner

was employed as a Constable bearing No.912330390 and was posted in

the Company of CISF Unit, BSL Bokaro, Bihar. On 13th January, 1999

the petitioner was issued a charge sheet imputing certain allegations

against him. The misconduct imputed against the petitioner was that he

was found under the influence of the liquor by Inspector/Exe. Rakesh

Kapoor (RI) on 4th November, 1998 at 2345 hours while on „C‟ shift duty

from 2100 hours on 4th November, 1998 to 0500 hours on 5th

November, 1998. It was also alleged that he did not turn up for „C‟ shift

duty on 17/18.11.1998, 28/29.11.1998, 29/30.11.1998 and

16/17.12.1998 without any information/permission of the competent

authority. The petitioner had been indisciplined and had also

committed the gross misconduct of dereliction of duty, as he was found

sleeping under the influence of liquor on 19/20.11.1998 and

21/22.11.1998. It was further imputed that the petitioner did not turn

up for „C‟ shift duty again on 16/17.12.1998 and thereafter, deserted

from the Unit Line without any leave and permission of the competent

authority and reported back to the Unit only on 29.12.1998.

3. The charges framed against the petitioner by memorandum dated

13.01.1999 are as under:-

Article of charge-I

Gross misconduct indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that No. 912330390 Constable Anoop Kumar of [email protected] Coy CISF Unit BSL Bokaro was found under the influence of liquor by Insp./Exe Rakesh Kapoor (RI) at about 2345 hrs on 4.11.98 while on 'C' shift duty from 2100 hrs on 4.11.98 to 0500 hrs on 5.11.98 at unit line gate.

Article of charge-II

Gross misconduct ,indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that No. 912330390 Constable Anoop Kumar of 'HQ' Coy CIS F unit BSL Bokaro did not turn-up for 'C' shift duty on 17/18-11-98, 28/29-11-98, 29/30-11-98 and 16/17-12-98

without any information/permission of the competent authority.

Article of charge-III

Gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that No 912330390 Constable Anoop Kumar of 'HQ° Coy CISF Unit BSL Bokaro while detailed for 'C' shift duty on 19/20-11-98 and 21/22-11-98 was found in sound sleep under influence of liquor when checking Officer at about 2130 hrs on 19-11-98 and 2330 hrs on 21-11-98.

Article of charge-IV

Gross misconduct, and indiscipline in that No.912330390 Constable Anoop Kumar of „HQ' Coy CISF Unit BSL Bokaro did not turn up for 'C° shift duty on 16/17-12-98 and thereafter deserted from Unit lines without any leave/permission of the competent authority and reported back to Unit on 29.12.98 at 1530 hrs.

Article of charge -V

Gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawfully orders in that No.912330390 Constable Anoop Kumar of „HQ‟ Coy CISF -Unit BSL Bokaro is a habitual offender of coming various offences and incorrigible inspite of deterrent punishments awarded to him during his past service.

4. The petitioner had received the charge memo on 19th January,

1999, however, he did not file any reply to the charges made against

him. An Inquiry Officer was, thereafter, appointed by order dated 11th

February, 1999 at Bokaro. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry as

per the rules and laid down procedure by giving the petitioner

reasonable opportunity to defend himself. During the inquiry, eight

witnesses were examined and the petitioner was given due opportunity

to cross-examine the said witnesses. Thereafter, on the basis of the

statement of the witnesses and the documents produced and proved

during the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had held that the charges against

the petitioner were established and he submitted the enquiry report on

24th April, 1999.

5. A copy of the inquiry report was also served on the petitioner and

he was asked to file reply/representation within 15 days. The petitioner

filed his representation dated 10th May, 1999. The Disciplinary

Authority considered the inquiry report and the representation made by

the petitioner and relying on the statement of PW-5, who had deposed

that the petitioner was found under the influence of liquor and that the

smell of alcohol was coming from his mouth, and also by referring to

the statement of PW-2, Sub Inspector/Exe. K.C.Baliar Singh; PW 7

Constable S.A.Hafees and Exhibit P/20, the medical examination report

indicating the level of Alcohol in his blood which was found to be 15

mg% it was held that the petitioner was in drunken condition while on

duty and thus the misconduct in terms of Charge-I was proved. Relying

on the Duty Deployment Chart dated 17th November, 1998, 28th

November, 1998, 29th November, 1998 and 16th December, 1998, it was

also inferred by the Disciplinary Authority that Charge-II was also

proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority further held that the

petitioner was liable for the misconduct alleged under Charge-III and

Charge-IV as well.

6. The Disciplinary Authority also considered the past record of the

petitioner and inferred that he had indulged in gross misconduct,

indiscipline and dereliction of duty leading to awarding of one major

and four minor punishments for various misconducts. Reliance was

also placed on the statement of PW4, ASI/CLK B.Ghosh Ray who had

deposed that the petitioner was awarded as many as 5 punishments

during his past service in the CISF, which was also established from his

service record and thus, the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the

plea of the petitioner that he was not given any documents during the

course of the departmental inquiry, and that the petitioner did not

know anything due to the mental disorder suffered by him during the

stipulated period of the alleged misconducts. The Disciplinary Authority

also observed that the charged official did not ask the Inquiry Officer for

any documents during the course of the departmental inquiry.

According to the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner only indulged in

resorting to dilatory tactics by taking the plea of his illness. Relying on

the certificate dated 10th April, 1999, the Disciplinary Authority held

that the petitioner had no Psychiatric disorder and in the

circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority held that the absence of the

petitioner from duty on 17th November, 1998, 28th November, 1998 and

29th November, 1998 for three days and period of AWL w.e.f. 16th

December, 1998 to 29th December, 1998 for 14 days be treated as EOL

without medical certificate and also awarded the punishment of removal

of the petitioner from service with immediate effect by his order dated

13th May, 1999.

7. In respect of the other charge sheet dated 7th May, 1999 where

the petitioner was charged with desertion from Unit on 15th January,

1999 and reporting only on 7th March, 1999 after remaining absent

without any leave for 51 days, the Disciplinary Authority passed the

order dated 15th May, 1999 holding that since by order dated 13th May,

1999 in the present case the petitioner had already been removed from

the service, therefore, the departmental inquiry was ordered to be kept

in abeyance in case his order of removal dated 13th May, 1999 is set

aside. In case the order of removal got set aside, the departmental

proceeding pursuant to memorandum of charge sheet dated 7th May,

1999 was to be re-opened.

8. The order of termination dated 13th May, 1999 was challenged by

the petitioner in an appeal. The appeal of the petitioner dated 28th

September, 1999 to the DIG, CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro was, however,

dismissed by order dated 22nd/23rd January, 2000. The petitioner has

challenged his order of removal and dismissal of his appeal by filing the

present petition contending, inter-alia, that the respondents failed to

give a proper look into the representation given by the father of the

petitioner while imposing the penalty of removal; the respondents failed

to consider that there was no specific nuisance created by the petitioner

while on duty; the Commandant of the petitioner did not afford

adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case properly; the

Commandant completed the enquiry without examination of any

witnesses and did not allow the petitioner to cross examine the

witnesses; the blood test of the petitioner was not done, which could

been the evidence about the petitioner consuming liquor; that the

petitioner had not taken liquor on earlier occasions; that no personal

hearing was given to the petitioner; that the penalty of removal is

disproportionate to the alleged guilt of the accused and that the order of

punishment is not a speaking order.

9. The petitioner also produced the copies of some of the telegrams

given on behalf of the petitioner after he was removed from service by

order dated 13th May, 1999. In the telegram dated 24th May, 1999 given

by the wife of the petitioner to the Commandant, CISF Unit it was

alleged that his acts are highly irregular and unlawful and that she

believes that her husband has been killed in conspiracy by the

Commandant. In another telegram given to the Commandant by the

father of the petitioner it was alleged that the petitioner was not

mentally healthy and it was the responsibility of the Commandant to

hand over the petitioner after his dismissal.

10. On behalf of the petitioner the discharge certificate dated 2nd

June, 1997 has also been produced, showing that the petitioner was

admitted to Dr.Damani‟s Nursing Home, Dibrugarh from 11th May,

1997 till 2nd June, 1997 on account of Paranoid Disorder. Along with

the said certificate, a copy of the medical prescription has also been

produced advising him home rest for two months. Yet another

certificate has been produced on behalf of the petitioner dated 18th

November, 1997 from Dr.Hiranya Kumar Goswami, Dibrugarh stating

that the petitioner suffered from adjustment disorder and he was under

his treatment from 12th November, 1997 till 18th November, 1997 on

which date he was discharged with the advice to continue his

medication. The certificate also stipulated that the petitioner should be

provided escort for to and fro journey and that he should be posted in

and around his hometown.

11. Another certificate from Dr.Damani‟s Nursing Home details that

the petitioner was admitted from 11th February, 1998 till 19th February,

1998 and he was diagnosed with "Alcohol Dependence" and he was

advised a conservative treatment. The medical prescription stipulates

that the petitioner should be accompanied with an escort. On behalf of

the petitioner other medical prescriptions have also been produced

which details the medicines prescribed to the petitioner from time to

time.

12. The petitioner has also produced a medical certificate dated 5th

December, 1998 about his admission from 29th November, 1998 to 5th

December, 1998 on account of the petitioner suffering from Typhoid

fever.

13. The petitioner has further produced the photocopy of an undated

letter showing endorsement of receipt by someone dated 9th December

1998 seeking leave on medical ground. The petitioner has also produced

a letter written by his wife dated 9th June, 1999 to the Director General

(Admn.) complaining about the misbehavior with the petitioner who was

allegedly innocent and his unfair removal from the service. Along with

the writ petition, the copy of the appeal filed by the wife of the petitioner

to the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force

along with the treatment card of the petitioner of J.N.Medical College

Hospital, Aligarh from 16th September, 1999 is also appended.

14. The writ petition is contested by the respondents who have filed a

counter affidavit dated 21st August, 2002 of Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta,

Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Limited,

Bokaro. The respondents have revealed in the counter affidavit that the

petitioner has not exhausted the departmental remedy available to him,

as a revision petition is still maintainable to the next higher authority in

terms of Section 9 of the Central Industrial Security Force, 1968. The

respondents have further alleged that the petitioner is indulging in

frivolous allegations and is abusing the judicial process.

15. The respondents have also contended that the petitioner has not

approached the Court with clean hands and has not disclosed all the

facts. According to the respondents, the petitioner is a habitual offender

and during his short span of service he has been awarded 7

punishments in addition to the punishment of removal from service

challenged by him in the present petition. Referring to the charges

framed against the petitioner, it is contended that on 4th November,

1998 while on duty he was found under the influence of liquor at Unit

Line Gate; he did not turn up for "C" Shift duty on 17th/18th November,

1998; 28th/29th November, 1998; 29th/30th November, 1998 and

16th/17th November, 1998 without any information and permission of

the competent authority; on 19th/20th November, 1998 and 21st/22nd

November, 1998 he was found sleeping under the influence of liquor

when checked by checking officer at about 2130 hours on 19th

November, 1998 and 2330 hours on 21st November, 1998 and the

petitioner did not turn up for "C" shift duty on 16th/17th December,

1998 and thereafter, he deserted the unit lines without any

leave/permission and reported back to unit on 29th December, 1998 at

1530 hours entailing issuance of chargesheet dated 13th January, 1999.

The respondents have disclosed that the charge sheet was received by

the petitioner on 19th January, 1999, however, he did not reply to the

charges made against him leading to the conduct of departmental

enquiry against him by order dated 11th February, 1999. An enquiry

report dated 24th April, 1999 was given by the Enquiry Officer, a copy of

which was also given to the petitioner and he was given adequate time

to make a representation against the same. The petitioner had

submitted his representation on 10th May, 1999 and pleaded innocence.

However, the Disciplinary Authority after considering his representation

and the enquiry report, had imposed the penalty of removal from service

by order dated 13th May, 1999. The respondents have detailed earlier

seven punishments awarded to the petitioner, which are as under:-

           Sl.No.              Charge              Punishments Awarded

             1.       Overstayed from leave        Awarded penalty of
                      for 17 days without          fine equal to his 03
                      prior   permission    of     days pay vide order
                      competent      authority     dated 9-9-94.
                      w.e.f 24-5-94 to 9-6-94
            2(i).     He manhandled a truck        Awarded penalty of
                      driver while on duty on      reduction of pay by 02
                      20.4.95 in presence of       stages for a period of
                      public    without    any     one      year     with
                      provocation                  cumulative effect vide
                                                   order dated 17.10.95
             (ii)     He was found under
                      influence of liquor while
                      on duty on 20-4-95.
            3(i)      Overstayed from leave        Awarded penalty of
                      for 46 days wef. 24-5-       fine equal to 03 days
                      96 to 8-7-96 without         pay vide order dated
                      permission              of   18-9-96.
                      competent authority
            4(i)      He was found absent          Awarded penalty of
                      from duty at 1735 hrs        with holding of one
                      on 6-5-97 and found at       increment   for    two
                      Sukhanpokhari at 2000        years          without
                      hrs    in     intoxicated    cumulative effect vide
                      condition                    order dated 30-4/2-5-




             (ii)     Found     absent    from
                      assigned duty on 09-
                      05-97.
            (iii)     He was admitted in
                      Sibsagar Hospital on 9-
                      5-97 at 2230 hrs, but
                      he left hospital and
                      went to CWS gate at
                      1030 hrs on 10-5-97 in
                      intoxicated condition.
             5.       He did not deposit Awarded penalty of
                      trefoil copy of railway fine equal to his 03
                      warrant No.036986         days pay vide order
                                                dated 1/2-6-98.
             6.       Deserted    unit    lines Awarded penalty of
                      from 5-11-98 to 13-11- fine equal to his 07
                      98      without       any days pay vide order
                      information          and dated 22-1-99.
                      permission             of
                      competent authority
             7.       Overstayed from leave Awarded penalty of
                      wef. 17-1-98 to 9-2-98 withholding of one
                      for 24 days and again increment for one year
                      deserted unit lines from without     cumulative
                      19.2.98 to 15-4-98 for effect vide order dated
                      56 days without any 25.1.99.
                      permission             or
                      information            of
                      competent authority

16. The respondents have also disclosed that the petitioner has been

issued charge sheets dated 7th May, 1999 and 8th May, 1999 under

Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969. By chargesheet dated 7th May, 1999 the

petitioner has been charged with deserting the unit line from 2350

hours on 15th January, 1999 and remaining absent upto 6th March,

1999. By charge memo dated 8th May, 1999 the petitioner is charged of

creating nuisance under the influence of liquor on 10th April, 1999 at

about 2030 hours and misbehaving with Miss M.Minz, a staff nurse of

Bokaro General Hospital and also remaining absent from unit lines with

effect from 10th April, 1999 at 2230 hours to 11th April, 1999 at 0805

hours. The petitioner was also charged by the said chargesheet dated

8th May, 1999 for lifting three suitcases of the other CISF Personnel

from the „J‟ Company Barrack on 4th May, 1999 and taking them away

in a three wheeler. The allegation is that he was caught red handed

while opening the said suitcases by making duplicate keys at

Dundibagh market.

17. The departmental proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge

memo dated 7th May, 1999 and 8th May, 1999 have not been finalized as

the order of removal dated 13th May, 1999 has been passed and

consequently, the disciplinary proceedings have been kept in abeyance

by order dated 15th May, 1999 and 19th May, 1999.

18. The respondents have also disclosed that the petitioner had

joined the CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro on 28th July, 1998 on regular

transfer from CISF Unit, ONGC Nazira and have denied that the petition

dated 2nd March, 1998 was submitted to the respondents. The

respondents have submitted that the petition dated 2nd March, 1998

had been addressed to the Deputy Commandant, ONGC Sibsagar,

Assam, who has, in any case, not been cited as a respondent in the

present matter.

19. Regarding the request of the petitioner for allotment of a formal

quarter, the respondents have contended that the same was placed in

the seniority list and the formal quarter could not be allotted to the

petitioner immediately.

20. Regarding the treatment received by the petitioner after his

removal from service, the respondents have averred that this is not

relevant for determination of the penalty imposed on the petitioner

pursuant to the proper enquiry conducted against him in accordance

with the rules and the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The

respondents have also placed reliance on the medical certificate dated

10th April, 1999 detailing that there was no psychiatric disorder in the

petitioner and that the petitioner is "alcohol dependant" which was also

established from the pathological tests of his blood on 4th November,

1998, 20th November, 1998 & 22nd November, 1998. Regarding the

absence of the petitioner from the duty, the respondents have relied on

GD entries No.352 & 353 dated 17th November, 1998, No.603 dated 28th

November, 1998, No.620 dated 29th November, 1998 and No.444 dated

16th December, 1998.

21. The respondents have further averred that no representation was

received from the father of the petitioner; enquiry was conducted

according to the rules and laid down procedure giving reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner; and the petitioner was present throughout

the departmental enquiry. The respondents have denied that no

witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer. It has been

categorically asserted that 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the

respondents and that the petitioner was given opportunity to cross

examine the witnesses, however, he did not cross examine all the

witnesses but did cross examine PW-2, PW-4 & PW-7. The allegation

that the petitioner has not signed the relevant proceedings was also

denied. The respondents disclosed that the copies of the transactions of

the enquiry had been supplied to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer.

The respondents also disclosed that the record of the medical

examination of the petitioner was produced before the Enquiry Officer

and has been duly established.

22. The respondents categorically denied that the father of the

petitioner had submitted any medical records pertaining to the

petitioner to the respondents.

23. The petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 16th January, 2004 denying

the specific pleas raised by the respondents, however, he did not

produce anything new or disclosed any new fact except for reiterating

whatsoever had been stated by the petitioner in his petition.

24. This Court has heard the counsel for the parties and perused the

writ petition, the counter affidavit and the rejoinder and the documents

produced by the parties. The respondents also have produced the

original record pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated

against the petitioner pursuant to the charge memo dated 13th January,

1999. Perusal of the original record of the enquiry proceedings reveals

that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and had

received the relevant documents. The petitioner had also signed the

proceedings. On 3rd March, 1999 he had pleaded "not guilty" by

contending that he accepts whatsoever is alleged against him, but it

was on account of minor causes. He admitted that he had not replied to

the charge memo, and he also admitted that the Enquiry Officer could

act as an Enquiry Officer. Perusal of the record reveals that the

statements of various witnesses were recorded in his presence, as the

statements were counter signed by the petitioner. The petitioner has

cross examined some of the witnesses. Perusal of the record also reveals

that the respondents have produced the record pertaining to the various

DG entries to establish that the petitioner had been absent on the date

and time as had been alleged by the respondents. The respondents have

also established the reports given by the concerned personnel regarding

the absence of the petitioner on different dates. The respondents have

also produced, during the enquiry, the report of the petitioner from

Bokaro General Hospital regarding alcohol dependancy. PW-5 also

reveals that substantial alcohol was found in the blood of the petitioner,

which is further substantiated by PW5/Ex.P21 which stipulates that 42

mg percent alcohol was found in the blood of the petitioner and

PW5/Ex.P22 which reveals that 48 mg percent alcohol was found in his

blood .

25. In the circumstances, the plea on behalf of the petitioner that the

enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the rules and that the

petitioner was not given adequate opportunity is not made out. The

respondents have produced sufficient proof to establish the fact that the

petitioner was found under the influence of alcohol and in an inebriated

state on various dates and that he was absent from duty.

26. The medical record which has been produced on behalf of the

petitioner along with the writ petition had not been produced during the

enquiry proceedings. No sufficient reason has been disclosed by the

petitioner for not producing the medical record prior to the period

during which the enquiry was conducted. The perusal of the said record

rather reveals that it is not material and does not absolve the petitioner

of the charges made against him. Rather the medical certificate dated

19th February, 1998 diagnosing the petitioner as "alcohol dependence"

substantiates the plea of the respondents. The medical record which

has been produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition after

the enquiry was concluded also does not absolve the petitioner of the

charges made against him in any manner. The representations and the

appeals filed on behalf of the petitioner by his wife and father rather

highlights the reckless and baseless allegations made against the

respondents. The respondents have categorically denied the

representations received from the father of the petitioner which fact

cannot be disbelieved in the facts and circumstances as the

representations and appeal received from the wife of the petitioner were

duly dealt with and were rejected by passing reasoned orders. There

was no reason for the respondents to have not considered and disposed

off the representation received from the father of the petitioner had it

been received by the respondents.

27. This Court does not have to go into the correctness of the truth

of the charges. It cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary

authority. It cannot sit in appeal on the findings of the disciplinary

authority and assume the role of the appellate authority. In cannot

interfere with the findings of the fact arrived at in the disciplinary

proceedings except in the case of mala-fides or perversity i.e where

there is no evidence to support a finding or where the finding is such

that no one acting reasonably or with objectivity could have arrived at

or where a reasonable opportunity has not been given to the delinquent

to defend himself or it is a case where there has been non application of

mind on the part of the enquiry authority or if the charges are vague or

if the punishment imposed is shocking to the conscience of the Court.

Reliance for this can be placed on State of U.P & ors. Vs Raj Kishore

Yadav & anr., (2006) 5 SCC 673; V.Ramana Vs A.P. SRTC & ors.,

(2005) 7 SCC 338; R.S.Saini Vs State of Punjab & ors., JT 1999 ( 6) SC

507; Kuldeep Singh Vs The Commissioner of Police, JT 1998 (8) SC 603;

B.C.Chaturvedi Vs Union of India & ors, AIR 1996 SC 484; Transport

Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs A.Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC

332; Government of Tamil Nadu & anr.Vs A. Rajapandia, AIR 1995 SC

561; Union of India & ors. Vs Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 and

State of Orissa & anr. vs Murlidhar Jena, AIR 1963 sc 404.

28. It also cannot be disputed that the grounds on which

administrative action is subject to control by judicial review are,

"illegality"; "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety". The Court will

not interfere in such matters unless the decision is tainted by any

vulnerability like illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.

Whether action falls within any of the categories is to be established

and mere assertion in that regard may not be sufficient. To be

"irrational" it has to be held that on material, it is a decision "so

outrageous" as to be in total defiance of logic or moral standards. If the

power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist or reaching

conclusions which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power shall

be vitiated. Exercise of power will be set aside if there is manifest error

in the exercise of such power or the exercise of power is manifestly

arbitrary. To arrive at a decision on "reasonableness" the court has to

find out if the respondents have left out a relevant factors or taken

into account irrelevant factors. In (1995) 6 SCC 749, B.C.Chaturvedi v.

Union of India & ors Supreme Court at page 759 has held as under:-

12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

29. The Supreme Court in (2006) 5 SCC 88, M.V.Bijlani Vs Union of

India & ors. had also held that the Judicial review is of decision making

process and not with re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court in

para 25 at page 96 had held as under:

25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.

30. In the circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to make

out any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in the enquiry conducted

by the respondents pursuant to which the punishment of removal from

the service has been passed against the petitioner. The previous

punishments imposed upon the petitioner and other chargesheets

issued to him for various other lapses and misconduct on the part of

the petitioner rather points out that the punishment of removal from

the service passed by the respondents against the petitioner by order

dated 13th May, 1999 is justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner,

in the facts and circumstances, has not been successful in making out

any ground or show any such facts which will show that the

punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the