SANYASI Vs. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner while serving as first Division Clerk in the establishment of Railways, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railways, Bilaspur, the 5th Respondent herein, initiated departmental proceedings against the Petitioner by issuing a charge memo alleging that the Petitioner secured the job falsely claiming that his date of birth is 06.06.1938, whereas, his actual date of birth is 06.06.1933. The 5th Respondent, having issued the charge memo but without concluding the enquiry contemplated under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, by his order dated 03.03.1994, terminated the services of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order of the 5th Respondent, instituted Original Application No. 173/1994. That application was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short C.A.T.) by its order dated 08.07.1994 and the C.A.T. set aside the order dated 03.03.1994. While doing so, the C.A.T., however, permitted the Department to conduct the enquiry against the Petitioner by fixing a time-frame of 6 months. The Petitioner was also directed to fully cooperate with the enquiry. The order made by the C.A.T. on 08.07.84 has become final, and therefore, the Department and the Petitioner are bound by the same.

(2.) AS permitted by the C.A.T. the 5th Respondent proceeded to conduct and conclude the enquiry. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led in the enquiry, the 5th Respondent found the Petitioner to be guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and thought it fit to impose the penalty of removal from service as a disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the 5th Respondent by his order dated 16.11.1995 removed the Petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. The challenge made by the Petitioner by way of appeal within the Department also went in vain. That led to the Petitioner again instituting Original Application No. 421/1995 before the C.A.T. assailing the order of the 5th Respondent, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, on various grounds. The C.A.T. without finding any merit in the Original Application, by its order dated 21.04.2002, dismissed the application. That is how, this matter is landed before this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mrs. Smita Ghai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed three fold contentions:

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the point that arises for decision is whether the Petitioner has made out any permissible ground on the basis of which we could possibly step in under Article 226 to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against the Petitioner-delinquent. It is true that the scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental enquiry is very much limited and circumscribed by a catena of decisions handed down by the Apex Court and High Courts. It is quite often said and reiterated that the reviewing Court would not go into the question of adequacy and sufficiency of evidence on the basis of which factual findings are recorded by enquiring and/or disciplinary authority. It is also well settled that strict rules of evidence have no application in conduct of departmental enquiry. At the same time, it is also well settled that before imposing a punishment on a delinquent as a disciplinary measure, the Disciplinary Authority is required to practise the principle of fair play in action and strictly adhere to principles of natural justice. It is also well settled that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority and/or disciplinary authority should be based on objective facts and not surmises or conjectures. It is also well settled that disciplinary action could be initiated only by a competent authority in terms of the service rules governing conduct of departmental enquiry.