Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
1. The applicant of this OA is before this Tribunal aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby they have found him guilty of committing misconduct, and have imposed upon him a major penalty of reduction to a lower post by one rank, and even his review petition filed has been dismissed, allegedly without properly analyzing the grounds raised therein, and in the result, he has prayed for the following reliefs:-
âa) set aside the Inquiry report dated 30.09.2009, which was submitted by the Inquiry Officer vide order No. 225(A)/HR/DISC/ITDC/07/1682 and
b) set aside the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by Vice-President (Engg) of ITDC and
c) set aside the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Director (CandM) competent Appellate of ITDC and
d) set aside the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of ITDC and
e) pass such other and further order(s) as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.â
2. On 28.09.2007, a departmental enquiry for major penalty proceedings had been initiated against the applicant under the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC, in short) (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2002, as amended through Notification dated 25.10.2005 filed by the learned counsel for the applicant during the hearing of the case. The Memorandum and Articles of Charges were issued against the applicant in regard to the development work of Quila Rai Pithora- Fortification wall Sanjay I- earth work, in which six charges had been levelled against him (Annexure A-5). On 05.11.2007, the applicant requested for being supplied that the documents, which had not yet been supplied to him, and also requested for inspection of certain documents and records, through Annexure A-6, but the applicant has alleged that the same were not supplied to him. Thereafter, through Annexure A-7 dated 21.11.2007, he filed a reply denying all the charges/allegations framed/levelled against him. However, after considering his reply on 18.01.2008, the Disciplinary Authority Senior Vice President (Engg.) of ITDC ordered for conduct of the disciplinary enquiry against him, appointing an Enquiry Officer through Annexure A-8, who conducted the enquiry thereafter, and on 30.09.2009 (Annexure A-2) filed his Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority. After having received a copy of the enquiry report, the applicant submitted his comments on the same on 07.11.2009 through Annexure A-9. However, on 29.03.2010, the Disciplinary Authority, Vice-President (Engg.), ITDC, imposed the major penalty on reduction to a lower post through his order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure A-3). Feeling aggrieved the applicant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Director (Commercial and Marketing) on 29.04.2010 through Annexure A-10. However, through order dated 23.07.2010, the Director (CandM), as the Appellate Authority of the applicant confirmed the order of punishment imposed upon him. The applicant thereafter filed his Review Petition dated 04.05.2011 through Annexure A-11, and after considering it, through the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure A-1), the Chairman and Managing Director of ITDC has, as the applicants Reviewing Authority, dismissed the Review Petition, and confirmed the order dated 29.03.2010 of the Disciplinary Authority, and order dated 23.07.2010 of the Appellate Authority.
3.  The grounds taken by the applicant for filing this OA are that the prosecution had been able to present only selected documents during the course of the disciplinary enquiry, and not the entire file of the case relating to Quila Rai Pithora fortification of wall (Sanjay-I) earth work. He has also submitted that many more documents were demanded by him, which were either denied to him, or supplied after a conclusion of the enquiry. He has also taken the ground that the prosecution had dropped two witnesses out of the earlier listed prosecution witnesses, one of whom was the successor of the applicant. He has also submitted that one of the lady official, who had been involved in uploading the details of the tendering process, had expired, and could not be produced as a witness, which point was to be noted, and was overlooked both by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Enquiry Officer. It was further submitted that the services of a particular officer, an ex-employee of ITDC, sought for by the applicant to represent his case during the disciplinary enquiry, had been denied to him.
4. Another ground taken by the applicant was that a very important and material file relevant in the case had gone missing, allegedly from the custody of the then DGM (Engg.), before the start of the enquiry, which was admitted by the one of the Prosecution Witnesses, and, therefore, non availability of material documents had vitiated the enquiry proceedings conducted against him. He had relied upon the Honble Apex Court ratio in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 to state that non-supplying of relevant documents has resulted in miscarriage of justice, and has denied him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the action proposed to be taken against him.
5. It was also submitted by the applicant that there was one more relevant Prosecution Witness-4, whose deposition during his cross examination had not been taken note of by the Enquiry Officer. It was also submitted that the facts regarding the uploading of the tendering process on ITDC website had also been overlooked by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Enquiry Officer. He had also taken the ground that he had been denied the opportunity of being properly heard, as one of the named Prosecution Witnesses had later been dropped by the Disciplinary Authority. He has also submitted that the Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority had failed to notice that there is no difference in the rates for mechanical excavation/manual excavation for the earthwork, and that the transport factor costs were, in fact, added by the Scrutiny Cell, and not by him.
6. He has also submitted that the concerned file had been lost during transit between PW-6, DGM(Engg.) and the Vice President (Engg), and as per the established practice, and under instructions from both of them, a circular was issued to all the departments regarding the file having gone missing, but since no response was received from any quarter, than it was decided, with the approval of the competent authority, to re-invite the tender, and in this regard an adverse inference had been unnecessarily drawn by the Disciplinary Authority against the applicant. He had denied the allegation that the file was deliberately and with ulterior motive misplaced by him, in order to get the tenders to be re-invited, as frivolous, false and baseless, since the tender box was locked, and it could not have been estimated by him that any or all the parties had put their tenders in the tender box, and as to what rates they had quoted. He had further raised the ground that the main case file had not been made an Exhibit in the charge sheet issued to him, and had been held back from him, with malafide intention to deprive him from presenting his defence effectively, and, therefore, when so many documents which were required by him for his defence were not made available to him, the enquiry had been vitiated.
7. In saying so, the applicant had cited the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Committee of Management, Kissan Degree College vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey (1995) 1 SCC 404. He had further alleged that the Disciplinary Authority had wrongly adopted the process of going through a formal disciplinary enquiry, when even his reply to the charge sheet had been found to be convincing. He had further submitted that the punishment imposed upon him was excessive, and not in accordance with Rule-11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and that both the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer have not acted in a fair manner, by trying to get certified/attested copies of files from the CBI, which was not done, and, therefore, no reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend himself during the enquiry, and thus the enquiry was held in violation of the principle of natural justice. In the result, he has prayed for the reliefs as mentioned above. He had also filed an MA No. 1774/2012 seeking for stay of the order dated 30.04.2012 issuing a Corrigendum to the order dated 29.03.2010 impugned at Annexure A-1 of the MA.
8. The respondents filed their counter reply on 04.07.2012, denying the contention of the applicant that the disciplinary enquiry against him had not been properly conducted, and submitted that by filing this OA the applicant is only seeking this Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence, and decide upon the adequacy of the evidence, and the material available before the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, which functions he cannot request the Tribunal to perform, and that the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before this Tribunal, since the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities, and not that of beyond any reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the applicant has been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer after considering all the relevant available materials, and that the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority have been satisfied with the finding of the enquiry, and have thereafter imposed upon him the major penalty of reduction in rank in this regard.
9. It was further submitted that the findings and conclusions arrived at are based upon the evidence adduced during the course of the enquiry, and that this Tribunal, in exercise of its power of judicial review, does not act as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence, and that there has been no violation of any statutory rules regarding the mode of conduct of the enquiry. Explaining the facts of the case, the respondents further submitted that the application is further liable to be dismissed as the applicant has not come before this Tribunal with clean hands, and he has failed to correctly describe the facts of the case, inasmuch as he was arrested by the CBI in another case in the evening of 28.12.2004 red handed while accepting a bribe for refunding the security deposit money in another case, and had been suspended from services of the Corporation. Explaining the facts and circumstances in which the present Articles of Charges had been levelled, the respondents had explained as to in what circumstances, except Article III, all the other five charges against the applicant have been proved, which details we need not go into at this stage of judicial review. However, we must mention the facts as described in respect of Article V, in which the findings have been arrived at that the action of the applicant in reporting that the file was missing, was incorrect, as the file was very much available with him, and the same was seized from his own records, after his arrest by the CBI while accepting bribe in the other case.
10. Regarding the contention of the applicant concerning non-furnishing of documents, it was submitted that the Articles of Charges had been framed on the basis of the material and documents available, and subsequently the additional documents located had also been furnished to him. The applicant was throughout aware of the charges made against him, and he was given ample opportunity of each occasion to state his case. It was submitted that the deposition of the witnesses had been correctly appreciated, and they had duly proved the misconduct of the applicant, and the fact that the applicant had deliberately and fraudulently obtained the approval to cancel the already invited tender, in order to be able to reframe the estimate and re-invite the tender, under the disguise of the loss of the concerned file, which was later found from the applicants own charge by a duly constituted committee, which opened his almirah after he was arrested by the CBI in another case. They had, therefore, denied that the enquiry proceedings were held in an improper and unfair manner, and that any principles of natural justice had been violated during the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, the respondents had justified that the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, and by the Disciplinary Authority after the acceptance of the report of the enquiry, and later by the Appellate Authority, and by the Reviewing Authority, CMD, ITDC, also.
11. The respondents had thereafter described the facts of another case not concerned with the present disciplinary enquiry, in which, after having been caught red handed taking the bribe, the applicant was first placed under suspension, and was later prosecuted and was convicted by the Special Judge, ACB-CBI, as per judgment dated 29.11.2010, for various offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and find of Rs.20,000/- under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and in the default of payment of fine, it was ordered that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. In respect of the another charge in that case, the applicant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years, and was imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, though it was submitted that these sentences shall run concurrently. However, it was mentioned that this judgment of the Special Judge, ACB-CBI, dated 29.11.2010, and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2010, stood suspended through the orders of the Honble Delhi High Court, where the appeal filed by the applicant still pending. Since the facts of that case are not relevant to the instant disciplinary enquiry, we need not go into the further details of that case as given by the respondent authorities. Along with their reply, the respondents had filed a copy of the judgment of the Special Judge, ACB-CBI in C.C. No.31/2010 mentioned above, and also a copy of the Criminal Appeal No.1470/2010 pending before the Honble High Court of Delhi, but that is not relevant here for the purpose of deciding the case regarding the present disciplinary enquiry.
12. The respondents had reiterated their contention that in the present case the findings of the enquiry report have been confined to the documents supplied to the applicant during the course of the enquiry, and that the documents which were not available, and were not supplied to the applicant, had not been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer during the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry, and all the defence documents found relevant and allowed by the Enquiry Officer were duly furnished to him in order to maintain his defence and have been relied upon by him in his representations submitted in response to the enquiry report, the order of punishment, the appeal petition and the review petition.
13. The applicant filed a rejoinder, more or less reiterating his contentions as mentioned in the OA. In this, he had mainly reiterated his stand that since Rule-55 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1930, had not been complied with, and all the relevant documents as asked for were not at all supplied to him, he had been unable to put up his defence properly, and that the Honble Apex Court judgment in Trilok Nath vs. Union of India (1967) 1 S.L.R. 759 is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. He had further made an insinuation that the draft of the report of the Enquiry Officer had been made on 20.09.2009 itself, before his written brief first was submitted on 26.09.2009, and that the date of submission of the Enquiry Officers report had been changed to 30.09.2009 with ulterior motive. He had further submitted that the facts of the other case, regarding his having been roped in a false case regarding refund of caution money, have no relevance to the facts of the present case, since he has fair chances of acquittal in the criminal matter, and in this submission of his, we agree with the applicant, and have already commented accordingly above.
14. The applicant had further submitted that only the selected documents relating to the work Quila Rai Pithora fortification of wall (Sanjay I) Earth work, were produced during the enquiry, and the very important and material file containing page 1-250 had been seized by the CBI, and hence copies of the same were not supplied to him during the departmental enquiry. He had further submitted that the oral evidence as produced has not been properly appreciated, and that one witness, whose evidence would have been vital in the case, was no more. He had, therefore, assailed the actions of the respondents, and reiterated that he had prepared the estimate as per CPWD norms, and that the transport factor had not been added by him but was added later on.
15. Written submissions were submitted on behalf of the applicant, once again reiterating that the concerned file which actually contained all the relevant documents, which were relevant for the applicants defence with respect to Article I and II, was not supplied, and the non-supplying of the particular file had prejudiced his case. In saying so, the applicant had relied upon the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank: (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha: (2010) 2 SCC 772. It was further submitted that the enquiry was based on no evidence, and had been vitiated on account of bias and violation of principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the evidence on record does not substantiate any of the charges against the applicant, and in saying so reliance was placed upon Moni Shankar vs. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 489.
16. It was further submitted that the Appellate Authority had not considered his contentions in regard to the basic principles of law, and that the question of disproportionate penalty has not at all been dealt with by the Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority. In saying so, he had relied upon the cases of Union of India vs. S.C. Parashar (2006) 3 SCC 167 and Chairman and Managing Director United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364.
17. In the written submission filed on behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that it was not a case of no evidence and that there was sufficient evidence before the Enquiry Officer to have found him guilty in respect of the six charges (I,II,III,IV,V,VI) in respect of which he had been held to be guilty. It was reiterated that the present OA is not maintainable as the applicant is seeking a re-appreciation of evidence, and/or is challenging the adequacy of evidence against the applicant, which this Tribunal cannot be asked to go into. In saying, the respondents had relied upon the following judgments:-
i) State of T.N. and Another vs. S. Subramaniam 1996(7) SCC 509;
ii) High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Uday Singh 1997 (5) SCC 129;
iii) State Bank of Patiala and others vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364;
iv) Secretary to Govt. Vs. Srivaikundathan (1998) 9 SCC 553;
v) State Bank of India and Others vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212.
18. It was, therefore, prayed that this Tribunal may not like to act as an Appellate Authority, to re-appreciate the evidence while exercising its power in judicial review. It was further reiterated that the concerned missing file, from which the applicant had kept on asking for documents, was actually found from the almirah of the applicant which was opened after his arrest by CBI for accepting bribe in another case. The duly constituted committee for taking inventory of the files in the almirah of the applicant had confirmed the authenticity of the inventory list of the files as available in the criminal case, as well as in the disciplinary enquiry, which list also included the missing file relating to the development work of Quila Rai Pithora fortification wall (Sanjay Van) Earth work. The respondents had therefore relied upon the Honble Apex Court judgments in the cases Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India (Through General Manager, Eastern Railway) 1987 (supp.) SCC 518 and Syndicate Bank vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati 2006 (3) SCC 150, in which it has been held that non-supply of documents on which the Enquiry Officer does not rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent, and the non-supply of only those documents, which are relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusion, would cause prejudice, being violative of the principles of natural justice. The respondents had also relied upon similar findings arrived at by the Apex Court in Secretary to Government and others vs. ACJ Britto (1997) 3 2011 387 and State Bank of India and others vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and Others 2011 (1) SCALE 390. In regard to the imposition of penalty and the quantum thereof, the respondents had justified their actions by relying upon the judgments of the Honble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177, B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, Shriji Vidyalaya and another Vs. Patel Anil Kumar (1998) 9 SCC 561 and State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Mohammed Ayub Naz (2006) 1 SCC 589.
19. Heard. The case was argued vehemently by both the sides. The learned counsel for the applicant kept on reiterating his submissions in the OA, and the rejoinder, stating that the Disciplinary Authority had not furnished a number of documents which were contained in the relevant file, and since the relevant documents and the file were not supplied to the applicant during the enquiry, the disciplinary enquiry had got vitiated, and had not been held properly and that non-supply of those documents had prejudiced the applicant.
20. However, on a closer scrutiny of the facts of the case, we find that the Article-V of the Charge Memo, which stands proved, shows that the concerned file had actually been hidden in his own Almirah/Cupboard by the applicant himself, and that he had thereafter kept on asking copies of documents from that file, and that the file from which the applicant was seeking copies of the records had actually been recovered from under the charge of the applicant himself, by a duly constituted Committee, after the applicants arrest by the CBI. What he had done with that file which he had deliberately himself misplaced or hidden, and what documents he had removed from that relevant file, which he had hidden in his own cupboard/almirah, could have been known only to the applicant himself, and so the Charge at Article-V has been held to have been conclusively proved.
21. When no documents as contained in the file, which was in the custody of the CBI, have been relied upon either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority, or by the Appellate Authority, or by the Reviewing/Revisional Authority, in passing their orders, mere non-supply of relevant documents from that file during the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry cannot be held against the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant had in fact neither approached the disciplinary enquiry with clean hands, nor has he approached this Tribunal with clean hands, and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for by him.
22. As has been held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Chandrama Tewari (supra), it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent Government servant facing the charges, but instead only the material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him. This judgment has also been reiterated by the Honble Delhi High Court also in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Jaipal Singh in its judgment in W.P. (C) No.15794/2004 decided on 06.11.2006 by stating as follows:-
âA domestic inquiry is not required to be held in an adversarial manner. A domestic inquiry is in the nature of investigation and not in the nature of adjudication. An inquiry officer has every right to ask questions to the witnesses in order to get clear and whole picture of the incident and asking questions does not amount to cross examination. Even if it amounts to cross examination, it is not illegal. Even a trial judge has a right and obligation to ask such questions to the witness as he considers necessary to bring out the truth. Asking a question, does not convert a judge into a prosecutor. Neither asking of questions to witnesses converts an Enquiry Officer into a prosecutor. There is no requirement of law that in an enquiry there should be a presenting officer. An inquiry can be conducted by an enquiry officer without the help of a presenting officer. A privilege is given to the delinquent employee to appoint his defence assistance because it is considered that the delinquent may not be in a proper state of mind to ask questions to the witnesses of the management or to present his case properly. But a delinquent can always refuse to take help of defence assistance and conduct the case himself. Similarly, management witnesses can depose before the inquiry officer of their own without the help of any presenting officer. An inquiry officer can always ask all relevant questions to the witnesses of both sides in order to know the truth. The Tribunal wrongly concluded that asking of questions by the inquiry officer was contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is now settled law that principles of natural justice cannot be put into a straitjacket formulae. In each case, where it is alleged that there was violation of principles of natural justice, the employee has to show as to how such alleged violation prejudiced his defence. There is no allegations made in this case that any prejudice was caused to the respondent. In 1987 (Supp) SCC 518 Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India (Through General Manager, Eastern Railways), Supreme Court held:
âWe have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and we have further considered the aforesaid authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant but we do not find any merit in the appellant's submissions to justify interference with the High Court's judgment. Article 311 of the Constitution requires that reasonable opportunity of defence must be afforded to a government servant before he is awarded major punishment of dismissal. It further contemplates that disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with the rules in a just and fair manner. The procedure at the enquiry must be consistent with the principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice require that the copy of the document if any relied upon against the party charged should be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in his defence. If findings are recorded against the government servant placing reliance on a document which may not have been disclosed to him or the copy whereof may not have been supplied to him during the enquiry when demanded, that would contravene principles of natural justice rendering the enquiry, and the consequential order of punishment illegal and void. These principles are well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. We need not refer to them. However, it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the charges, instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him. If a document even though mentioned in the memo of charges is not relevant to the charges or if its is not referred to or relied upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing authority in holding the charges proved against the government servant, no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the orders. If the document is not used against the party charged the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot successfully be raised. The violation of principles of natural justice arises only when a document, copy of which may not have been supplied to the party charged when demanded is used in recording finding of guilt against him. On a careful consideration of the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant, we find that the obligation to supply copies of a document is confined only to material and relevant documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if the non supply of material and relevant documents when demanded may have caused prejudice to the delinquent officer. (para 4)â
23. As per the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in âUnion of India and Ors. vs. Upendra Singh: (1994) 3 SCC 356â, this Tribunal cannot undertake the process of re-appreciating the evidence adduced in a disciplinary enquiry, and cannot go into the correctness or the truth of the charges, by putting itself in the shoes of either the Enquiry Officer, or of the Disciplinary Authority, or of the Appellate Authority. In his book on Administrative Law, at page 339, Sir William Wade has summarized the powers of judicial review as follows:-
âThe doctrine that the powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with no less important doctrine that the Court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which Parliament appointed to take the decision within the bounds of legal reasonableness is the area in which the deciding authority has genuinely free discretion. If it passes those bounds, it acts ultra vires. The Court must, therefore, resist the temptation to draw the bounds too tightly, merely according to its own opinionâ. If the decision is within the confines of reasonableness, it is no part of the Courts function to look further into its meritsâ.
24. In M/s Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra: AIR 1999 SC 625, the Honble Apex Court has held that the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court (and, by extrapolation, before this Tribunal), since the High Court (or this Tribunal) does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the factual findings recorded during the departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review. It was further laid down by the Honble Apex Court that the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. It was further laid down that judicial review is not directed against the decision of the administrative authorities, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process only.
25. In the case of âChief Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans: (1982) 3 ALL E.R. 141â, Lord Haltom observed as follows:-
âThe purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Courtâ.
26. In the case of Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur : (1972) 4 SCC 618, it was held by the Honble Apex Court that it was not the function of the High court to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held, the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court (and, by extrapolation, before this Tribunal also).
27. The same view has also been reiterated by the Honble Apex Court in the State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar and Anr.: 2012 (1) AISLJ 108 Full Bench judgment, stating in Para-8 as follows:-
â8. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which we need not refer to, and yet by the impugned judgment the High Court has re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations leveled against the respondent no.1 do not constitute any misconduct and that the respondent no.1 was not guilty of any misconductâ.
28. Finally, I feel that the powers of the Tribunal are bound by the comments of the Honble Apex Court in Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club and Another Vs. Chander Hass and Anr. : (2008) 1 SCC 683, in which the Honble Apex Court had an occasion to state that the powers of judicial review are limited, and must never be abused or misused, but should be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self-restraint. The judicial activism has to be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances, with in-built limitation.
29. Further, it has been held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors.: AIR 1996 SC 2552, that judicial review is normally not concerned with correctness of the decisions, but if the decision making process is held in such circumstances which so warranted, the decision itself will form the subject matter of consideration. To our mind, there appear to have been no circumstances, other than those created by the applicant himself, on account of which it can be said that the process of disciplinary enquiry had been affected and vitiated in any manner whatsoever, due to non-supply of the documents, which the applicant had himself concealed.
30. Therefore, in the whole conspectus of the events, and the arguments as were advanced during the hearing, it is clear that the applicant had on the one hand hidden the relevant file himself, which was recovered from his custody, after his arrest, and had on the other hand kept on complaining about documents being missing from that file, and not being supplied to him during the disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, there is no case whatsoever for the OA to be allowed, and the OA deserves to be rejected out-right.
31. In the result, the OA is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.