Central Administrative Tribunal

Jyotirmayee Panda vs. Union of India

MANU/CA/0863/2022

25.11.2022

Service

High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence

The Applicant challenging the order of punishment reducing her pay by one stage from Rs. 28,700 to Rs. 27,900 for a period of two months with immediate effect and rejection of her appeal vide order upholding the punishment has filed present original Application praying to set aside the chargesheet, order of punishment and appellate order.

Present Tribunal is well aware of its limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings as held by numerous judicial pronouncements. In the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekhran, Supreme Court has held that, 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 powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence.

In the present case, it is seen that the authorities while imposing the punishment as well as considering the appeal of the applicant did not take into consideration the speed post trackinginto record, which was available to them easily, thus disabling themselves from reaching a fair conclusions. They also did not take into consideration when the applicant pointed it out in her appeal, thus have failed to look into an admissible and material evidence in proper perspective, which is apparent on face of record. Thereby the Respondents, reached at a faulty conclusion of finding the applicant at fault, when she wasn't.

Non supply of documents to the applicant also is one vital factor, prejudicing and depriving her of the opportunity of defending her, also vitiated the entire proceeding. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Application Allowed.

Tags : Proceedings Punishment Legality

Share :