AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi and others challenging the judgment and order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 4th March, 2009 whereunder the impugned order of punishment dated 14th September, 2006 passed by appropriate authority is quashed and set aside. The petitioners were directed to open the sealed cover and consider the case of respondent thereunder with the recommendations of D.P.C with all consequential benefits. The exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order was passed as to costs.
(2.) BY filing this writ petition, Mr. K.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners has contended before this Court that the order, which has been passed by Tribunal ought to be quashed for non-appreciation of facts about the incident. On the other hand, Mr. K.P. Singh, learned Advocate counsel appearing for the sole respondent contended before this Court that the judgment and order, which has been passed by the Court is an appropriate judgment and order, both on account of facts and law. However, we have gone through some annexures of the writ petition to come to an appropriate finding. In the enquiry report, we find that respondent was charge-sheeted for certain act in connivance with others. They might be superior officers and one is clerk. The superior officers one being O.P. Kakkar, ASW and another Sri G.N. Trivedi, S.A-I were then retired. However, upon going through the enquiry we find that the charge against respondent with regard to existence of respective initials against charged officers on the replaced pages are 'not proved'. However, the disciplinary authority held as follows: "And Whereas, the said representation has been examined in consultation with the CE Command and the E-in-C's Branch, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the President has come to the conclusion that the points raised by Shri D.D. Rai in his representation are more or less the same, as raised by him during the departmental inquiry. Though he has denied the charge, he has admitted that he had signed on the replaced pages, albeit he has stated that he did this under compulsion (i.e. under pressure from the then SSW and CE AF). That he had really acted under pressure is, however, difficult to believe, as he has not produced any concrete proof. Rather, it is quite reasonable to infer that he has only acted in connivance with his superiors. It cannot be denied that Shri D.D. Rai, as JSW, was actively involved in the tender processing as part of his duty; as such, he cannot escape the responsibility regarding contents of the replaced pages. Shri Rai's signature was found on the replaced pages and he has accepted this fact before the Board of Officers, though, he later denied it during the regular hearing before the Inquiry Officer. Shri Rai has also given contradictory version about the initials of typists who typed the pages. All these actions, alongwith his responsibility as JSW, go to establish the alleged misconduct on his part; replacement of pages in the papers of the concerned Contract Agreement has created ambiguity in contract provision leading to financial implication, and the involvement/connivance of Shri D.D. Rai in the tampering of papers, is not entirely ruled out;" Now, therefore, in view of the above position, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the President, hereby orders for imposition of the penalty of one time cut of Rs. 500/- in the pension of Shri D.D. Rai, JSW (Retd), under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972."
(3.) MR . Sinha has cited the judgment of three Judges Bench of Supreme Court reported in (2000) 1 SCC 416, High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrars Shashikant S. Patil and another in which the decision of disciplinary authority should not be interfered by High Court. However, in going through the judgment, we find a legal proposition which has been quoted here as under: "It is an established principle in disciplinary jurisprudence that when the disciplinary authority differs from the findings of the enquiry officer, it has to discuss the entire case threadbare and establish that each finding of the enquiry officer was totally improbable; that in the light of the materials the only conclusion that can be arrived at by an ordinary prudent man, is the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority." ;