Shri Shailendra Kumar vs N.F.RAILWAY on 23 September 2026

ORDER

PER SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A): The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “8.1] To set aside and quash the impugned Punishment order bearing No. T/Misc/D&AR/TII dated 24.03.2021 whereby major punishment of Compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the Applicant. 8.2] To set aside and quash the Appellate order bearing No. T/Misc/D&AR/TII dated 27.10.2021 wherein the appeal preferred by the Applicant against the punishment order of compulsory retirement dated 24.03.2021 has been rejected. 8.3] To pass any other appropriate relief (s) which the Applicant is entitled and as may be deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.4] To pay the cost of the application.”

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

2. Brief facts as stated by the applicant in the O.A. are that - he was working as Station Superintendent (SS) in Tingrai Railway Station, N.F. Railway, Tinsukia. He was suspended by the Respondents on 24.10.2020 and relieved from duty without conducting any mandatory alcohol test in an illegal manner. After suspension, the applicant went to his quarter and took lunch at nearby hotel where he consumed little amount of alcohol out of depression. Thereafter, the respondents have conducted alcohol test of the applicant in a nearby Railway Hospital after duty hours. After one month of the suspension, the Respondent No.4 has revoked the suspension of the applicant vide order dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure-A/2). The respondent No.

vide Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2020 decided to hold an inquiry against the applicant (Annexure-A/3). Applicant submitted his written statement of defence on 15.12.2020 to Divisional Operation Manager, Tinsukia Division, N.F. Railway, Tinsukia denying the charges framed against him (Annexure-A/4). The Inquiry Officer has submitted the Inquiry Report on 22.02.2021 (Annexure-A/6), wherein the charges framed against the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Applicant were proved. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, the Respondent No.5 has issued the Major punishment of Compulsory Retirement of the applicant vide order dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure-A). Being aggrieved by the major penalty, applicant has made an appeal on 23.04.2021 praying not to impose order of Compulsory Retirement. However, the Appellate Authority has rejected the Appeal by upholding the penalty of Compulsory Retirement vide order dated 10.06.2021 (Annexure-A/7). Being aggrieved with the same, Applicant has submitted a Revision Petition before the Principal Chief Operation Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon on 12.07.2021 (Annexure-A/8), which was rejected vide order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-A1). 2.1 Learned counsel for the respondents has averred that the applicant has a history of intoxication. On 05.06.2019, the applicant was found consuming alcohol in the station premises; following a medical examination at NTSK Railway Hospital, a breath analyser test confirmed the presence of alcohol, and blood samples were sent to the Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam for confirmation. On 29.06.2019, the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Directorate reported a level of 0.325 g of Ethyl Alcohol per 100 ml of blood — more than four times the level considered "very dangerous" under Railway Board Policy (Annexure R-I). On 06.08.2019, the applicant is stated to have confessed to having consumed alcohol approximately 16.5 hours before the medical examination; respondents note that, if taken as true, this admission would imply an even higher alcohol level at the time of duty commencement. Thereafter, on 20.09.2019, the applicant was scheduled to attend an inquiry at the Chamber of the Assistant Operating Manager, Tinsukia, but was found doing the same in a drunken state. He was again medically examined, and the Directorate of Forensic Science reported, on 26.09.2019, a level of 0.087 g of Ethyl Alcohol per 100 ml still above the "very dangerous" threshold (Annexure-II). A lenient view was taken of these two instances, and the applicant was awarded a punishment of three years' increment stoppage with cumulative effect vide order No. T/Misc(D&AR)/TII dated 05.11.2020. As regards the third incident, respondents have stated that during a surprise inspection by the Divisional Railway Manager on 24.10.2020 at Tingrai Station, the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Breathalyzer was not available with the officer; the alcohol test is not stated to be mandatory before suspension and was conducted thereafter to prevent risk to staff, passengers and the public, given the applicant's position as Station Superintendent. The blood sample and breath analyzer test were conducted at 14:20 hrs, 2 hours 40 minutes after his suspension, which respondents attribute to logistics. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the inquiry was initiated on account of the applicant's repeated instances of intoxication, and that the Railway Administration had already extended him leniency despite two blood reports establishing his guilt.

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder, averring that the respondents did not conduct the mandatory alcohol test at the spot, as required under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, to ascertain whether the applicant had consumed alcohol during duty hours (10 AM to 11.30 AM); taking the blood sample after duty hours is stated to be illegal and not sustainable under those Rules. The instant case, it is submitted, relates to the alleged incident dated 24.10.2020

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

and the resultant major penalty order dated 24.03.2021, which together with the Appellate order dated 10.06.2021 and the Revision order dated 27.10.2021is said to be illegal, whimsical, malafide and liable to be set aside and quashed, being contrary to the Punishment Norms in the Policy on "Drunkenness on Duty" vide Policy No. 2001/Safety-I/23/4 dated 27.11.2001 [Annexure A-9]; particularly Clause 6(iv), since the particular Scientific Method of a Breathalyzer was not used to assert his alcohol level beyond 70-mg/100 mg of blood during duty hours. It is submitted that there is no scientific report establishing that the applicant was drunk during duty hours on the day in question; the Respondents relied on the statements of other employees at the station rather than the Breathalyzer test, notwithstanding that the equipment is capable of giving a precise reading with a printout and memory function, and that Respondent No. 4, as a senior responsible officer, ought to have known the correct testing procedure.

4. We have heard Sri Adil Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and perused the records.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

5. Respondents are duty bound to follow the Revised Policy on "Drunkenness on Duty" vide Policy No. 2001/Safety- I/23/4 dated 27.11.2001 issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) Government of India. The Punishment Norms under Policy Rule No. 6 of the Revised Policy on "Drunkenness on Duty" are quoted below for kind perusal of this Tribunal:- "6. Punishment Norms:

(i) Staff who is found with alcohol level of between 01-20 mg/100 ml of blood will not be permitted to perform duty.

(ii) Staff who is found with alcohol level of between 21-40 mg/100 ml of blood will be issued a minor penalty in each case.

(iii) Staff who is found with alcohol level of between 41-70 mg/100 ml of blood will be issued a major penalty in each case.

(iv) Staff who is found with alcohol level of beyond 70- mg/100 mg of blood will be place under suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for reversion from the safety critical post.

(v) For repeated detection of 3 times, irrespective of the level of alcohol detected, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against the staff concerned for reversion from the safety critical post. State of Art Breathalyzer equipment capable of giving exact level of Alcohol content in the blood including print outs need to be

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

introduced. This breathalyzer should necessarily have the memory function so as in case of suspect a print out can be taken at a convenient location. Traffic Directorate of RDSO will standardise specifications of Fuel cell sensor based breathalyzer."

Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance, in support of the above submissions, on the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanali Karyani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930 wherein it is established that – No conclusion with regard to consumption of alcohol by a person can be made on the facts that the appellant’s breath was smelling of alcohol, gait was unsteady, speech incoherent, or pupils dilated. Consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by blood and urine tests”. He also stated that the respondents are duty bound to follow the Policy on Drunkenness on duty dated 02.11.2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), wherein at Para 3.1(i), (ii), (viii) & (ix), it stipulates as follow: 3.1 Preventive strategy

(i) Since running staff are directly involved in train running and mistake on their part may cause a serious accident which is detrimental to

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

safe running of trains, the running staff viz Loco Pilots, Assistant Pilots, Assistant Loco Pilots and Guards shall undergo breathalyzer test both at the time of Signing-ON and Signing-Off as per the existing Railway Board instructions.

(ii) All the staff listed at Para 2 above shall be subjected to sample test/surprise test by supervisors and officers carrying portable breathalyzers.

(viii) All supervisors/inspectors associated with above category of staff must be provided with portable breathalyzers for conducting surprise checks.

(ix) All these Supervisor/Inspectors should normally carry portable breathalyzer when on inspection on line.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that legal principles dictate that major penalties, including suspension or dismissal, must be supported by substantive evidence establishing misconduct. The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently emphasized the necessity of proper investigation and evidence before imposing such penalties. In case of, Rajendra Kumar Dubey -VS- Union of India, the Apex Court observed that the department failed to prove the petitioner was in a state of intoxication, and the penalty was based on unsubstantiated suspicion. The

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

medical and scientific evidence is crucial in cases involving alcohol consumption. In case of Sonu Kumar VS State of Bihar, reported in 2021 0 Supreme (Pat) 713 highlights that "a breath analyzer report alone is not conclusive unless supported by blood or urine tests. The Court in that case held that without such scientific proof, the allegation of alcohol consumption cannot be sustained, especially for major penalties like dismissal". In the said case, describes situations where disciplinary actions were taken based on viral videos and witness statements. The Court has scrutinized such evidence, noting that videos or witness accounts alone do not constitute sufficient proof without scientific verification. In the case Rajendra Kumar Dubey (supra), the Court set aside the order of dismissal because the department relied on unverified visual evidence and did not conduct chemical tests. Moreover, it is submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges, there being no other allegation such as rude behaviour or negligence, and having regard to the circumstances of the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

post-suspension consumption already noted above. Supreme Court of India in case of SURESH KUMAR SINGH -VS- STATE OF U. P. Reported in 2018 0 Supreme(All) 826 clearly emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must follow fair procedures, including providing the employee an opportunity to defend and ensuring that allegations are substantiated by evidence. For some instance, minor penalties may sometimes be imposed without a full Inquiry if the employee is notified of charges and given an opportunity to respond, as per rules like the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. However, for major penalties like suspension or dismissal, a thorough investigation with concrete evidence is mandatory.

7. We have gone through the facts of this case, the submissions made by the respective counsels and all relevant records.

8. As noted above, the applicant had two earlier proven instances of intoxication, for which he was awarded stoppage of three increments vide order dated 05.11.2020, and a third detection on 24.10.2020 during a surprise inspection at Tingrai Railway Station, tested by Breath

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Analyser and blood report within 2 hours 40 minutes of his suspension and not after duty hours, as alleged by the applicant.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we do not find any procedural irregularity in the Inquiry Proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. Railway Authorities have acted as per rules this being the third incident.

10. As regards quantum of punishment disproportionate, at this stage we refer to catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] held as under:

“13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary Inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 10.1 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench in the case of SBI vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457, by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority…………”

23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three- Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103].

24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of Inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

25. When the disciplinary Inquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:

(i) whether the Inquiry was held by the competent authority;

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;

(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

26. It is well settled that where the Inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of Inquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the Inquiry officer for further Inquiry.

27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental Inquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental Inquiry proceedings.

28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental Inquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 10.2

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563: (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasized about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that:- "22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re- appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary Inquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary Inquiry

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and

(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."

10.3

We have also gone through the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Subrata Nath, Civil Appeal Nos.—of 2022 @ SLP (C) No. 3524 of 2022 dated 23rd November, 2022 [2022 SCC Online 1617], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed and held as follows: “15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.

16. In the above context, following are the observations made by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra): “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel6 this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” [Emphasis laid]

17. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, a two Judge Bench of this Court held as below : “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic Inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the Inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana and High Court of Judicature at Bombay -vs- Shashikant S. Patil). [Emphasis laid]

18. In Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, a two Judge Bench of this Court referred to several precedents on the Doctrine of Proportionality of the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and held that : “21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.”

19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 held thus : “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the Inquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

powers under Articles of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

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

(b) the Inquiry 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 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;

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the Inquiry, 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.” XXXXXXXXXXX

22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefore.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

11. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority has taken into account the facts of the case and the relevant Rules in arriving at its conclusion regarding the quantum of punishment, which has been upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. This Tribunal, in exercise of its power of judicial review, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment so imposed unless it shocks the conscience of the Tribunal, which is not the case here. Accordingly, the impugned punishment order dated 24.03.2021, the Appellate order dated 10.06.2021, and the Revision order dated 27.10.2021 are upheld.

12. The O.A. stands dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(SANJIV KUMAR) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/PB/

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY