Chandu Venkateswarlu vs Union Of India & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2214 Del

                          #J-1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                         Judgment Reserved On : 09.04.2021
                                                       Judgment Pronounced On : 18.08.2021


                          W.P.(C) 4095/2014 & CM APPL.30527/2020

                          CHANDU VENKATESWARLU                                ..... Petitioner



                                                     versus



                          UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                               ..... Respondents

                          Advocates who appeared in this case:
                          For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parv
                                              Garg, Mr. Sagar Saxena and Mr. Pawas Kulshrestha,
                                              Advocates.

                          For the Respondents: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

                                                     JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (via Video Conferencing)

1. The present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, seeks quashing of order dated 17.02.2014,

passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "learned Tribunal") in

O.A. No. 192 of 2013; whereby the learned Tribunal upheld the order

dated 19.12.2012, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the

penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the Petitioner.

2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present

Writ Petition are adumbrated hereinbelow: -

(i) The Petitioner was appointed to the Group A Service of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of

Investigation, on 10.06.1997. After the successful

completion of his training, the Petitioner was posted to

Economic Offences Wing, Central Bureau of

Investigation, Chennai in the year 1998 as the Deputy

Superintendent. The Petitioner was thereafter

transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Central

Bureau of Investigation, Guwahati in the year 2001,

and thereafter to Economic Offences Wing, Central

Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, in the year 2004.

(ii) Whilst the Petitioner was posted in the Economic

Offences Wing, Central Bureau of Investigation,

Chennai, he was entrusted with an investigation into a

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 case RC-07(E)/2000-Chennai registered on 19.12.2000,

under sections 409 and 420 read with section 120B of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

'IPC') and Sections 6 and 13 read with section 25 of

the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976

(hereinafter referred to as 'FCRA'), upon a complaint

received from the Director, FCRA, Government of

India, Ministry of Home Affairs (FCRA Division),

New Delhi, in relation to misappropriation of foreign

donation and funds of more than Rs.14,00,00,000/-

(Rupees Fourteen Crores). The said RC-07 (E)/2000-

Chennai was registered inter alia against Mr. P.K.S.

Madhavan, Chairmain-cum-Chief Functionary of an

NGO in Hyderabad, named "AWARE" (Action for

Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment), as

well as against other unknown persons.

(iii) The Directors of NGO "AWARE" (hereinafter referred

to as "the NGO") were examined by the Petitioner in

April, 2001.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(iv) In pursuance of the investigation, the Petitioner along

with Constable Mohd. Aslam travelled to

Vishakhapatnam during the period from 23.05.2001 till

26.05.2001. At Vishakhapatnam, the Petitioner stayed

at Hotel Dolphin and Constable Mohd. Aslam stayed at

Hotel Prince. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved to

Rajahmundry in pursuance of the investigation, where

he stayed at Hotel Apsara.

(v) During the course of the investigation, substantial

material was found and unearthed by the Petitioner

against the NGO and the said P.K.S. Madhavan and

thus, they were accordingly prosecuted under the law

by the CBI.

(vi) On the 13.08.2001, approximately 03 months

thereafter, a Preliminary Enquiry was initiated by the

CBI against the Petitioner, on the basis of information

of alleged misconduct by the latter, of availing

pecuniary advantage from the NGO, during his visit to

Vishakhapatnam from 23.05.2001 till 26.05.2001.

Upon the conclusion of the Preliminary Enquiry, the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 CBI recommended initiation of proceedings for Minor

Penalty under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

(hereinafter referred to as "CCS (CCA) Rules") against

the Petitioner. The matter was then referred to the

Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to

as the "CVC") for First (1st) Stage Advice. The CVC

vídé its First (1st) Stage Advice recommended initiation

of Major Penalty Proceedings against the Petitioner as

well as against Constable Mohd. Aslam.

(vii) In accordance thereof, the Disciplinary Authority

ordered Major Penalty Proceedings against the

Petitioner. However, it is pertinent to observe that

Constable Mohd. Aslam was let off with a minor

penalty of censure.

(viii) On 27.01.2004, the Petitioner was served with a

Memorandum bearing No.221/11/2003 dated

27.01.2004, issued by the Under Secretary,

Government of India, Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi,

informing him that an nquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 (CCA) Rules is proposed against him for imposition of

a Major Penalty. On 20.02.2004, the Petitioner

submitted his written statement of defence denying all

the charges against him. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer

was appointed vídé DP&T Order No.221/11/2002-

APCA dated 06.05.2004 in the Departmental Enquiry

against the Petitioner. Examination and cross-

examination of witnesses were statedly conducted in

connection with the Departmental Enquiry.

(ix) On 28.12.2005, the Presenting Officer submitted a

Written Brief, wherein he asseverated that the charges

against the Petitioner have not been "conclusively

established"; and also that it cannot be "conclusively

attributed" that the Petitioner had availed the

hospitality of the accused party"; and further that there

were glaring deficiencies in evidence to bring home the

charges. The Petitioner also submitted a written brief

dated 04.01.2006, denying the charges levelled against

him. Upon the conclusion of the Enquiry, the Enquiry

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 Officer vídé his report dated 29.05.2006, found the

Petitioner guilty of all the charges framed against him.

(x) Thereafter, Second Stage Advice from the CVC was

sought. On 29.01.2007, the CVC rendered its advice in

the matter to the effect that there ought to be

imposition of Major Penalty upon the Petitioner.

Consequently, on 13.04.2007 vídé Memorandum

No.221/11/2002-AVD-II, the Petitioner was supplied

with a copy of the Enquiry Report dated 29.05.2006

along with a copy of the Second (2nd) Stage Advice of

the CVC dated 29.01.2007. The Petitioner submitted

his Representation dated 21.05.2007 in response to the

same. Thereafter, the matter was again referred to the

CVC to reconsider the matter on the ground that the

Notings by the CBI (dated 14.12.2007, 07.03.2008, and

12.03.2008) found that the charges against the

Petitioner were unsubstantiated; and, that there were

specific instances in the Enquiry Report demonstrating

that the Enquiry Officer had proceeded merely on

assumptions and conjectures.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 However, by way of its advice dated 16.05.2008, the

CVC reiterated its earlier advice (Second Stage Advice

dated 29.01.2007), and the matter was therefore

referred to the Union Public Service Commission

(UPSC) for Statutory Advice. Vídé its advice dated

18.03.2009, the UPSC also concurred with the findings

of the Enquiry Officer and the CVC.

Consequent thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority vídé

its order dated 22.02.2010, imposed the penalty of

compulsory retirement on the Petitioner.

(xi) The Petitioner challenged the said penalty order dated

22.02.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by

way of the O.A. No.2566 of 2010 before the learned

Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vídé its order dated

19.12.2011 allowed the said O.A. and set aside the

Penalty order dated 22.02.2010 on the ground that

there had been a violation of the principles of natural

justice. The learned Tribunal also remanded back the

matter to the Disciplinary Authority to cure the defects

in the Enquiry occurring from the stage of receipt of

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 the UPSC Advice dated 18.03.2009. The learned

Tribunal also directed the Disciplinary Authority to

hear the Petitioner and decide the matter afresh without

being biased by its earlier decision.

(xii) Thereafter, in view of the order dated 19.12.2011

passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2566 of

2010, the Petitioner was supplied with a copy of the

UPSC Advice. In response to the same, the Petitioner

filed a detailed representation dated 06.06.2012.

Subsequently, vídé its order dated 19.12.2012, the

Disciplinary Authority again imposed the penalty of

compulsory retirement on the Petitioner.

(xiii) The Petitioner thus was once again constrained to

institute O.A. No.192 of 2013 before the learned

Tribunal, impugning the order dated 19.12.2012,

passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned

Tribunal has vídé its impugned order dated 17.02.2014

rejected the said O.A. and accordingly upheld the order

dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on the

Petitioner.

3. A perusal of the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the learned

Tribunal in O.A. No.192 of 2013 would reveal that the learned

Tribunal found that there had been no violation of the principles of

natural justice; and that the procedural deficiency of non-supply of the

CVC's Second Stage Advice was cured in pursuance to the order

dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2566 of

2010. It was further found by the learned Tribunal that the Rules of the

CCS (CCA) have been complied with, and that it cannot be said that

the Disciplinary Authority did not apply its own independent mind and

acted merely on the dictation of the CVC/UPSC. In this regard, whilst

placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Ram

Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported as 1986 (Supp) SCC 582, it

was observed by the learned Tribunal that, since the Disciplinary

Authority concurred with the decision of the Enquiry Officer, it was

not necessary for the former to either repeat and record reasons in its

order; or to discuss the evidence again to arrive at the same findings.

Lastly, the learned Tribunal observed that it could not go into the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 proportionality of the penalty since this was not a case where there

was no evidence, and that, in fact, all procedural requirements were

fulfilled therein.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.02.2014, passed by

the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.192 of 2013; whereby order dated

19.12.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority was upheld, the

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

" (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/

order/direction for quashing/setting aside the impugned

Order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Ld. CAT (PB)

New Delhi in OA No. 192/2013;

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/

order/direction to grant to the petitioner all

consequential benefits arising from the setting aside the

order of punishment along with all consequential

benefits like reinstatement in service with accrued back

wages, promotions from back date etc.;

(iii) Direct the respondents to produce the complete records

and file pertaining to the present case;

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(iv) Direct the respondents to pay the cost of the present

proceeding to the petitioner;

(v) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case."

5. At the outset it is observed that admittedly, there were only

three charges framed against the Petitioner by the Respondents.

Firstly, that he accepted undue hospitality of the NGO, whose

investigation he was entrusted with; Secondly, that a bill of the hotel

the Petitioner stayed at, was signed by one of the Directors of the said

NGO; and, thirdly, that he got a hotel bill made, jointly, in his name as

well as the name of the Constable who accompanied him during the

tour for investigation, in order to claim fraudulently from the

Government and hide his stay at the other hotel where he allegedly

accepted hospitality of the party being investigated (the NGO).

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has had an immaculate

record of service throughout his entire career in the CBI and that the

same would be clearly demonstrated an established through his ACRs.

Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that whilst he was posted in the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 Economic Offences Wing of the CBI at Chennai, he was entrusted

with an investigation against the NGO, in relation to an alleged

misappropriation of foreign donation. During the course of the

investigation, the Petitioner had visited Vishakhapatnam between

23.05.2001 to 26.05.2001. The Petitioner stayed at Hotel Dolphin and

the stay was arranged for by the Petitioner's wife's uncle (Mr. P.

Rambabu). The stay of Constable Mohd. Aslam, who accompanied the

Petitioner during the visit, was also booked by the Petitioner's wife's

uncle at Hotel Prince. After the conclusion of his investigation at

Vishakhapatnam, the Petitioner visited Rajahmundry, where he had

arranged for the accommodation himself. During the investigation,

there was ample material found by the Petitioner against the NGO and

the NGO was accordingly prosecuted under the law. It has been

strongly urged on behalf of the Petitioner that, in the present case, the

charges levelled against him are axiomatically not made out and there

is overwhelming evidence pointing towards his innocence, which is

elaborated as follows: -

(i) The Directors of the NGO have unequivocally deposed

that the Petitioner has not accepted any hospitality

from them.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(ii) Mr. K. Ravi Kumar, a Director of the NGO, has

specifically stated in his testimony that he has not paid

anything towards the boarding and lodging of the

Petitioner in Hotel Dolphin at Vishakhapatnam or at

any other hotel.

(iii) Mr. K. Ravi Kumar also stated that he only signed the

Bill No.2647 dated 26.05.2001 for the amount of

Rs.3,584/- as he was asked to do so at the Reception of

Hotel Dolphin, since the Petitioner was getting late to

catch a train. Mr. K. Ravi Kumar also stated that he did

not pay anything whatsoever for the Petitioner and

further that he merely collected the said Bill and

handed it over to the Petitioner.

(iv) Mr. K. Ravi Kumar in his testimony furthermore stated

that he had merely written some amounts in the Surya

Note Book (3584, 3200, 6784) to help the Petitioner in

calculation.

(v) Mr. K. Ravi Kumar has also testified that he had

written the train details of the Petitioner only to inform

the same at the Reception.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(vi) Mr. K. Ravi Kumar categorically deposed that when

the Inspector of CBI, Mr. D.S. Chauhan had taken him

before the Cashier of Hotel Dolpihin to establish the

identity of the person who had made payment, the

Cashier of the hotel during the said Test Identification

did not identify him as the person who had made

payment to the hotel.

(vii) The treasurer of the NGO (Mr. K. Satyanarayana) has

in his examination in chief itself categorically stated

and confirmed that, as per the books of accounts, the

NGO has not paid any amount towards the hotel

accommodation of the Petitioner. Further, the same

witness in his cross-examination clearly stated that he

did not spend any money from his pocket on the

Petitioner's lodging and boarding.

(viii) Another director of the NGO (Mr. M. Murli Krishna)

also stated in his cross-examination that he did not

arrange nor make any payment for any accommodation

for the Petitioner at Rajahmundry.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(ix) Testimony of the Inspector who conducted the

Preliminary Enquiry against the Petitioner, read in

conjunction with the testimony of the Senior Assistant

of Hotel Dolphin (Mr. G. Suresh) and that of Mr. P.

Rambabu, would bring to light the fact that Petitioner's

wife's uncle (Mr. P. Rambabu) made all the payments

towards the accommodation of the Petitioner.

(x) Statements of Constable Mohd. Aslam, Mr. P.

Rambabu and Mr. K. Ravi Kumar would bring home

the fact that the payment for Hotel Prince where

Constable Mohd. Aslam was staying was not made by

the NGO and was in fact made by Mr. P. Rambabu.

(xi) Evidence would also reveal that there were two

bookings in Hotel Dolphin. One in the name of "V.

Chandu" and the other in the name of "Chandu

Venkateshwarlu"; and only one of them was extended

for three more days under the name of Mr. P. Rambabu

and Mr. A.V. Krishna Rao, which establishes beyond

any doubt that the Petitioner availed the room booking

that was done by his wife's uncle (Mr. P. Rambabu).

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(xii) Statements of the Directors of the NGO would also

reveal that booking for the Petitioner had already been

made at Hotel Dolphin. This has further been

corroborated by the testimony of Mr. P. Rambabu.

7. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the

Petitioner in support of his case: -

(i) It has been vehemently contended that the entire

proceedings were conducted in violation of the

principles of natural justice since the Petitioner was not

supplied with the First Stage Advice of the CVC, the

recommendation by the CBI etc. In this regard, the

decisions in The Chairman, Central Board of

Trustees v. M. Vijayaraj, reported as (2011) 185 DLT

688; and State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal,

reported as (1993) 1 SCC 13 have been relied upon.

(ii) It has also been contended that the Departmental

Enquiry was initiated on non-existent grounds. It has

been submitted in this regard that the Petitioner had

never made any T.A. bill claim for his stay and for the

stay of Constable Mohd. Aslam at Vishakhapatnam;

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 and that this factual position has been admitted by the

Respondents as well. In this regard the learned Counsel

for the Petitioner have placed reliance upon the

decisions in Indian Nut Products v. Union of India,

reported as (1994) 4 SCC 269; and Indian Railway

Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, reported as

(2003) 4 SCC 579.

(iii) It has been contended that since the Respondents acted

in violation of Rule 14(5) whilst appointing an Enquiry

Officer simultaneous with the issuance of the Charge

Memo without awaiting/considering the written

statement of the Petitioner, the Enquiry stands vitiated.

To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed

on the decision in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath,

reported as (2014) 1 SCC 351.

(iv) With regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it

has been argued that there is in fact no evidence against

the Petitioner and that the Enquiry Officer has

proceeded against him merely on the basis of

assumptions and suspicion. It has further been pointed

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 out that the same has been admitted by Respondent

No.1 itself that none of the witnesses have stated that

they paid anything towards the booking of the room for

the Petitioner. And, in fact, there is clear and

corroborated testimony stating that the payment for the

hotel rooms at Vishakhapatnam and Rajahmundry were

in fact made by the Petitioner's wife's uncle and by the

Petitioner. Further, the findings of the Enquiry Officer

are perverse, inasmuch as, it is evident that the Enquiry

Officer has ignored the specific pieces of evidence on

record, including the testimony of PW-12, Mr. V.

Rajendra Prasad, General Manager, Hotel Dolphin; and

PW-8, Mr. G. Suresh, Senior Assistant, Hotel Dolphin.

The Enquiry Officer has further baselessly and without

any cogent reason rejected the testimony of K. Ravi

Kumar and P. Rambabu (uncle of the Petitioner's

wife). It has also been submitted that it was completely

illogical and incorrect for the Enquiry Officer to

conclude that the accommodation for the Petitioner was

not booked by his wife's uncle on the grounds that the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 latter neither visited the Petitioner whilst he left the

Hotel Dolphin, nor did he receive him at the time of

check-in. It has been incorrectly concluded that merely

signing a bill would amount to also making payment

when the relevant witnesses themselves have

categorically denied making any payments. It has been

submitted that the findings and decision of the

authorities are in the teeth of the settled law in relation

to circumstantial evidence.

Reliance has been placed on the following decisions in

this behalf:

(a) Central Bank of India v. Prakash Chand

Jain, reported as AIR 1969 SC 983;

(b) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police,

reported as 1999 2 SCC 10;

(c) Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi

Administration, reported as (1984) 4 SCC

10;

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(d) Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G.

Thirugnanasambandam, reported as (2005)

3 SCC 241; and

(e) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and

Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.

Gandhi, reported as (1991) 2 SCC 716.

(v) It has also been submitted that whilst rendering his

report, the Enquiry Officer has completely ignored the

written brief of the Presenting Officer which clearly,

categorically and unequivocally states that the charges

against the Petitioner have not been conclusively

established since the evidence in this behalf "is

weakened"; and further that it cannot be conclusively

attributed that the Petitioner availed the hospitality of

the accused party; and has also completely ignored the

written statement of defence by the Petitioner. The

Enquiry Officer has merely mechanically noted the

same and not considered them in any manner whilst

making the report against the Petitioner. It has,

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 therefore, been vehemently argued on behalf of the

Petitioner that, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse, illegal and ought to be set aside. In this

regard, the Petitioner has relied upon the decision in

Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration,

reported as (1984) 4 SCC 10.

(vi) It has been further submitted that the Disciplinary

Authority ought to draw the substance of imputation of

misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct

article of charges in accordance with Rule 145(3)(i). In

this regard it has been pointed out that the Enquiry

Officer has, in contravention of the law, traveled way

beyond the three charges framed; to erroneously

conclude that the Petitioner has obtained financial

benefit by way of payment made by the Directors of

the NGO for his stay at Vishakhapatnam:

                                                (a)     Availing undue hospitality;

                                                (b)     Getting accommodation booked at Hotel

Dolphin at Vishakhapatnam and at Hotel

Apsara at Rajahmundry;

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(c) Obtaining false bill in order to claim

fraudulently from the government to hide his

stay at Hotel Dolphin.

In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the

decision in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India

Insurance Company, reported as 2006 (4) SCC 713.

It has further been argued that the UPSC was

misdirected in law as it traveled beyond the charges

framed as well, insofar as it without reason cause or

occasion and beyond the scope of its jurisdiction,

casually and erroneously observed in its Report that,

the Petitioner has failed to explain why he chose to

arrange for an accommodation in a costly hotel that

was much beyond his entitlement.

(vii) It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that

the order imposing the punishment is vitiated by non-

application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. In

this regard, it has been submitted that the order

imposing penalty upon the Petitioner has been passed

on mere dictation by another authority, inasmuch as,

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 the Disciplinary Authority relied solely on the bald and

uninformed advice of the CVC and the UPSC. It has

been argued that although the Disciplinary Authority

itself did not agree with the Second Stage Advice of

the CVC and sought a reconsideration of the same, yet

the Disciplinary Authority followed the same advice

and admittedly imposed penalty upon the Petitioner

without independently applying its own mind to the

facts, circumstances, and evidence in the matter. The

Disciplinary Authority has not drawn any findings in

respect of the charges as is mandated by Rule 15(3)

and (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In order to buttress

this submission, reliance has sought to be placed upon

the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

-

(a) Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate

Bank, reported as (1991) 3 SCC 219;

(b) Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.

Gordhandas Bhanji, reported as AIR 1952

SC 16.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

(viii) It has been canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that

the punishment that has been awarded to the Petitioner

is inarguably excessive and illegal, since the

Disciplinary Authority ought to have acted on its own

independent judgment rather than by placing reliance

on the statutory advice or otherwise of any other

authority/body. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has

not weighed or considered the clean service record of

the Petitioner, lack of any cogent or actionable

evidence against him, and the fact that initially only

minor penalty proceedings were recommended against

him, whilst deciding the quantum of punishment to be

imposed upon the Petitioner. It has further been

submitted that the punishment awarded to the

Petitioner is discriminatory to the extent that the CVC

had recommended major penalty proceedings to

Constable Mohd. Aslam as well. However, he was let

off by the Respondents merely with the minor penalty

of censure.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 In this regard reliance has sought to be placed on the

following decisions:

(a) S.R. Tewari v. Union of India, reported as

(2013) 6 SCC 602;

(b) H.P. Gupta v. Delhi Administration,

reported as (2015) 223 DLT 554.

(ix) It has also been submitted that the officials of the

NGO, in order to scuttle the proceedings and

investigation by the CBI, were making repeated calls

and bookings on behalf of the Petitioner as they were

aware of the schedule of the Petitioner at

Vishakhapatnam.

(x) It has been submitted that admittedly, there were two

bookings made in Hotel Dolphin and as such, it goes

against logic and natural human conduct for someone

to make two bookings in the same hotel for himself.

Therefore, it has been submitted that the booking made

at the behest of the Petitioner was without an iota of

doubt done by his wife's uncle, Mr. P. Rambabu;

whereas, the other booking purportedly by the NGO

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 was not made at the behest of the Petitioner, and was,

in fact, maliciously made by the NGO.

(xi) Furthermore, it has been argued that the Enquiry

Officer made completely wrong inferences from the

call records in the matter. It has been stated that phone

records showing calls between the NGO and the CBI,

Chennai, Hotel Dolphin and Hotel Prince, seen in

conjunction with the testimony of Mr. P. V. Ramanna,

Director of the NGO that the Petitioner had informed

them of the date of investigation, would in no way be

stretched so as to indicate that the Petitioner obtained

any pecuniary advantage from the NGO and none of

the charges against him can in law be made out from

the same.

(xii) It has lastly been submitted that the order imposing

compulsory retirement suffers from illegality,

irrationality and procedural impropriety and therefore,

liable to be set aside.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

8. Per contra, it is argued by the official Respondents that the guilt

of the Petitioner has been conclusively proved by the following oral

and documentary evidence: -

a. Testimony of PW-1, Mr. P.V. Ramana, Director of the

NGO, where he has stated that he was asked by the

Petitioner to confirm accommodation;

b. Testimony of PW-2, Mr. K. Ravi Kumar, Director of

the NGO, where the witness deposed that he

continuously and constantly present at Vishakhapatnam

to facilitate the investigation by the Petitioner;

c. Telephone bill of the telephone installed at the

Hyderabad office of the NGO indicating that the

Petitioner had informed the Hyderabad office of the

NGO about his original tour program for investigation

from 18.05.2001 as well as revised tour program;

d. Reservation Register of Hotel Dolphin (PD-5)

demonstrating that the room at which the Petitioner

stayed from 23.05.2001 to 26.05.2001 was booked in

the name of "Chandu V". The Bill No.2647 dated

26.05.2001 issued by Hotel Dolphin (PD-2) in the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 name of "Chandu V" was collected by PW-2 (Mr. K.

Ravi Kumar, Director of the NGO) by putting his

signature at the place of "guest signature";

e. The Bill of the Hotel Prince was issued in the joint

name of the Petitioner and Mohd. Aslam, even though

the Petitioner was not staying at Hotel Prince;

f. It is evident that from the "Surya Notebook" (PD-3),

that the balance bill of the amount Rs.3,584/- is also

mentioned in the notebook of PW-2 (Mr. K. Ravi

Kumar, Director of the NGO) and not just the amount

of Rs.3,200/- which was paid on 26.05.2001 towards

extending the booking for the same room in Hotel

Dolphin in the name of "Chandu V"; and

g. From the document PD-2, it is evident that telephone

calls were made from the Hyderabad office of the NGO

to Hotel Apsara at Rajahmundry where the Petitioner

had stayed from 04.06.2001 to 07.06.2001; and that an

advance of Rs.1,000/- was paid on 01.06.2001 in the

name of "Chandu V" even though the Petitioner was

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 not present at Hotel Apsara on 01.06.2001 as he in fact

checked-in Hotel Apsara on 07.06.2001.

9. The arguments advanced and submissions made on behalf of the

Respondents are encapsulated hereinbelow: -

(i) It has been canvassed on behalf of the Respondents that

since the learned Tribunal had gone into the procedural

aspects of the case at hand and by way of its order

dated 17.02.2014 opined that all procedures were

followed in the enquiry, the grievance of the Petitioner,

that he was not supplied with a copy of the First Stage

of CVC advice and other documents, holds no water. It

has been further submitted in this regard that no

prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner due to the

non-supply of the copy of the First Stage of CVC

advice, and that the Petitioner has been heard and the

enquiry against him has been conducted in accordance

with the Rules and the principles of natural justice. It

has further been submitted in this regard that since the

procedural issues were gone into and considered by the

learned Tribunal twice, firstly, in O.A. No.2566 of

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 2010; and secondly, in O.A. No.192 of 2013, the

contention of the Petitioner that, the enquiry vitiated

due to the non-supply of First Stage Advice of the

CVC and thus a violation of the principles of natural

justice, holds no merit.

(ii) It has further been submitted on behalf of the

Respondents that, as opposed to what has been

contented on behalf of the Petitioner in this regard, on

account of the CVC's advice to initiate major penalty

proceedings in both, first as well as the second stage, it

is not open for the Petitioner to place reliance on the

recommendation made by the CBI to the effect that the

proceedings be initiated for minor penalty under Rule

(iii) With respect to the reliance placed by the Petitioner

upon the Written Brief by the Presenting Officer to the

effect that charges against the Petitioner have not been

fully proved, it has been contended on behalf of the

Respondents that, the Written Brief by the Presenting

Officer is a mere submission, which is subject to

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 consideration of the Enquiry Authority; and further

that, the said submissions are of no relevance

particularly when the Enquiry Report concludes that

the charges have been fully proved against the

Petitioner.

(iv) It has been submitted on behalf of the Respondents that

the findings of the Enquiry Report have been supported

by the Statement of Witnesses and the Documents on

Record in the Enquiry. Further, that based on the

evidence in the case, the Article of Charges has been

proved by the Enquiry Officer vídé Enquiry Report

dated 29.05.2006, which has been agreed to by the

CVC and the UPSC. Moreover, it is upon accepting the

advice of the UPSC and the Enquiry Report, that the

Penalty Order dated 19.12.2012 has been passed by the

Disciplinary Authority against the Petitioner.

(v) It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the

Respondents that the Penalty Order has been passed by

the Disciplinary Authority after duly considering all the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 aspects of the matter as well as the representation made

by the Petitioner against the advice of the UPSC.

(vi) Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the

Respondents that Inquiring Authority was appointed on

06.05.2004 by way of order No.221/11/2002-APCA,

and not on the same date on which the Memorandum

of Charge was issued i.e., 27.01.2004 as has been

urged on behalf of the Petitioner.

(vii) In order to controvert the submissions made on behalf

of the Petitioner, it has also been stated on behalf of the

Respondents that the fact that the Petitioner and Mohd.

Aslam did not claim the TA Bill was of no relevance,

since the case of the Respondents is that the Petitioner

availed hospitality from the NGO it was investigating

at the time.

(viii) It has been contended that the Enquiry Officer has

proceeded on cogent evidence and not on mere

suspicion and/or assumption as has been urged on

behalf of the Petitioner. It has also been submitted in

this regard that whilst giving his findings in the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 Enquiry Report dated 29.05.2006, the Enquiry Officer

has considered all the aspects of the case, pleadings,

statements of witnesses and documents on record. To

controvert the contention of the Petitioner that the

initiation of the Departmental Enquiry was baseless

and misconceived, it has been urged that it is only after

a Preliminary Enquiry was conducted and the CVC

was consulted, that the Memorandum of Charge dated

27.01.2004 was issued against the Petitioner.

(ix) Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the

Respondents that, the charge against the Petitioner that

he availed hospitality from the NGO cannot be

construed in a narrow sense; and therefore, the finding

of the Enquiry Officer, that the payment of bill was

made by the NGO, cannot be said to have gone beyond

the charge. In this regard, it has also been submitted

that even otherwise, if the findings of the Enquiry

Officer in paragraph No.73 of its order were not taken

into consideration, the Enquiry Officer found the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 Petitioner guilty as has been stated in paragraph Nos.

67 and 72 of the said order.

(x) It has also been submitted on behalf of the Respondents

that, as opposed to what has been argued on behalf of

the Petitioner, the punishment imposed upon the

Petitioner is not excessive/disproportionate; and that

his role in the investigation against the NGO as well as

his status as the DSP, CBI is not comparable to Mohd.

Aslam, who was not an investigating officer.

10. We have heard the submissions of the parties at length and

perused the record.

11. At the outset, it would be pertinent to discuss the powers of this

Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Inia whilst

going into the decision of Disciplinary Authority and/or Tribunals.

The limits of the jurisdiction of this Court in issuing a writ of

certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the legal position in this regard is no

longer res integra.

12. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported as AIR 1963 SC

1723 it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: -

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 "7. ...The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution as a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution."

13. In Syed Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, reported as AIR

1964 SC 477, the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the question of the limits of

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under

Article 226, observed inter alia that "...The jurisdiction to issue a writ

of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is

not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily

means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal

as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or

questioned in writ proceedings."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Syed Yakoob (supra) has

also observed that a Court exercising Writ Jurisdiction can correct an

error of law by way of a writ of certiorari, and that such an error of

law would inter alia also mean and include an event where a finding

of fact is based on no evidence. It has however been cautioned that in

cases of such nature, the Court must bear in mind that "... A finding

of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings

for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material

evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate

to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of

evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the

said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and

the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court."

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 The Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on the decisions in

Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque reported as (1955) 1

SCR 1104, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division

and Appeals Assam reported as (1958) SCR 1240, and Kaushalya

Devi v. Bachittar Singh reported as AIR 1960 SC 1168 whilst

rendering the above observations.

14. The same principle that, the High Court ought not interfere with

the conclusion of the disciplinary authority unless the finding is not

supported by any evidence or when it can be said that no reasonable

person could have reached such a finding, has been followed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao,

reported as (1975) 2 SCC 557; Railway Board v. Niranjan

Singh, reported as (1969) 1 SCC 502; and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union

of India, reported as (1995) 6 SCC 749.

15. In this regard, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State

of Haryana v. Rattan Singh reported as (1977) 2 SCC 491 has also

observed as follows: -

"4. ... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good."

[Emphasis supplied.]

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court crystallized the principles in relation

to the scope of power of the High Courts, whilst exercising writ

jurisdiction in such cases in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran,

reported as (2015) 2 SCC 610 and the same have been reproduced

hereinbelow:

"12. ......The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

[Emphasis supplied.]

17. In Om Kumar v. Union of India, reported as (2001) 2 SCC

386, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the Wednesbury

Test/Principles, the oldest test/principle laid down on the subject,

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 whilst opining on the powers of the Writ Courts under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India in relation to Departmental

Inquiries. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: -

"Lord Greene said in 1948 in the Wednesbury case [(1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. He said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered; or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. These principles were consistently followed in the UK and in India to judge the validity of administrative action. It is equally well known that in 1983, Lord Diplock in Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service [(1984) 3 WLR 1174 : 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 at 950j] (called the GCHQ case) summarised the principles of judicial review of administrative action as based upon one or other of the following viz., illegality, procedural irregularity and irrationality."

[Emphasis supplied.]

18. We may also refer to the relevant portions of the decision of the

House of Lords in Associated Provincial Picture Houses

Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn reported as (1948) 1 KB 223. The same is

extracted and reproduced hereinbelow: -

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 "... It is true that discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word 'unreasonable' in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting 'unreasonably'. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could even dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. ... In another, it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and in fact, all these things run into one another.

**** **** **** ... it must be proved to be unreasonable in the sense that the court considers it to be a decision that no reasonable body can come to. It is not what the court considers unreasonable. ... The effect of the legislation is not to set up the court as an arbiter of the correctness of one view over another."

[Emphasis supplied.]

19. Another guiding principle for considering the present petition

would be one advocated by Lord Cooke. A simpler test than the

Wednesbury Principle, as suggested by Lord Cooke, to ascertain

whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction should interfere with the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 decision of the Tribunal/Authority is, "was the decision one which a

reasonable authority could reach?".

20. In light of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

the Wednesbury Principle as well as the test advocated by Lord Cooke

of the House of Lords, it is abundantly clear that this Court cannot sit

in appeal over the decision of the learned Tribunal and that of the

Disciplinary Authority. Further, it would be borne out from the

decisions cited hereinabove that this Court cannot go into the

insufficiency or adequacy of evidence in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction. This Court ought to only interfere with the decision of a

Tribunal/Authority in the event that there was no evidence, or that the

conclusion of the Tribunal/Authority was one which cannot be

supported by any evidence and the same could not have been arrived

at by any reasonable person/authority in the given set of facts and

circumstances.

21. Thus, the principal question that arises for our consideration is

whether the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority as well as that of

the learned Tribunal vídé its order dated 17.02.2014, are reasonable,

logical and based on cogent evidence that supports the charge against

the Petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

22. Ex facie, upon a plain reading of the evidence recorded of the

16 witnesses examined in support of the charges against the Petitioner

it is manifest that, the entire case of the Respondents, that the

Petitioner availed undue hospitality, is unfounded inasmuch as, all the

Directors of the NGO denied having paid any money whatsoever

towards the booking of the room for the Petitioner during the

investigation. Further, the testimony of the Petitioner's wife's uncle,

who stated that he booked and paid for Petitioner's stay during the

tour/investigation, has been further corroborated by the testimony of

the subject witnesses. Further, the explanation offered by one of the

Directors of the NGO, who signed the hotel bill in no uncertain terms

establishes that he denied making any payments for the Petitioner in

any manner whatsoever. This testimony has also been inarguably

corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses including the Cashier

of the subject hotel; in complete consonance with the stand maintained

throughout by the Petitioner.

23. It seems that the Respondents have pre-determined desired

outcome to the disciplinary/penalty proceedings i.e., the guilt of the

Petitioner and thereafter proceeded to completely and erroneously

disregard any evidence that establishes otherwise. No reasonable

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 person/authority, having applied their mind to the charges to be

established, could have concluded in the manner as has been done in

the present case. Even a cursory glance into the matter clearly

demonstrates that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in

view of the clear cut evidence on record, there is nothing present to

show that the Petitioner was guilty beyond the preponderance of

probability of any of the three charges framed against him in the

subject enquiry. The material on record shows that the said charges

were a fortiori, as submitted by the Presenting Officer himself, not

conclusively established owing to the weaknesses in the testimony of

official witnesses and further that it could not be attributed that the

Petitioner availed the hospitality of the accused party. There is no

evidence on the record, direct/indirect or circumstantial, to bring home

the charges against the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer's report is

replete with presumptions and conjectures and premised on suspicion

surmises and unsubstantiated assumptions, completely contrary and in

abject ignorance to the testimony of the witnesses.

24. In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the Disciplinary

Authority seems to have arrived at a decision against the Petitioner

that is completely in defiance of any logic and unsupported by even an

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 iota of evidence. The present is not a case where the Disciplinary

Authority could have taken one of two views. Had that been the case,

this Court would have to exercise restraint in recording its reasonable

view as against that of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore,

unfortunately, in the present case, ex facie, one and only one logical

conclusion can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case.

And, that conclusion undoubtedly points towards the fact that none of

the charges have been made out against the Petitioner; as well as the

considered opinion that the findings arrived at are perverse and not

based on any legal evidence. In addition they suffer from the

additional infirmity and vice of total non-application of mind. Any

findings of misconduct based on total absence of evidence, must

necessarily fail.

25. It would also not be out of place to state that the learned

Tribunal completely glossed over the crux of the matter at hand, and

was only impressed by the fact that the principles of natural justice

were met and that the Petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard.

The learned Tribunal ought to have tested the decision of the

Disciplinary Authority to discover whether or not there was any legal

evidence which would support, in any manner whatsoever, the charges

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12 against the Petitioner. The learned Tribunal was axiomatically in error

in declining to examine the contention that the findings were perverse

on the cryptic, short, specious and wholly untenable finding---without

any due consideration---and their ipse dixit that, it would be difficult

to hold that the Enquiry Officer's findings fell in the category of 'no

evidence'.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), has

observed that "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 enquiry 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."

27. In keeping with the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, we are of the considered view that the interference of this Court

in the present case is clearly and eminently warranted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the findings and

conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order

dated 17.02.2014, as well as, those made in the order dated 19.12.2012

passed by the Disciplinary Authority are not sustainable in law.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the

learned Tribunal and the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the

Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty are set aside and quashed. In

the result, the Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service and he

shall further be entitled for all increments and promotions, including

back wages, till the date of his superannuation, in accordance with

law.

29. The present writ petition is allowed, and is disposed of on the

above terms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

30. There shall be no order as to costs.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

TALWANT SINGH (JUDGE)

AUGUST 18, 2021/dn Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:18.08.2021 21:59:12