Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from disciplinary proceedings against a cashier in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad, who was charged with misappropriation of government funds and cooperative dues. The Union of India challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order that had set aside the dismissal. The respondent worked as cashier from 23.08.1981 to 19.04.1984. Five charges were framed under Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, alleging misappropriation of Rs.63,790.36, Rs.16,600, Rs.13,798.95, and Rs.2,901. A surprise check on 19.04.1984 found shortage. Because a criminal prosecution was pending on the first charge, enquiry on that charge was stayed. The enquiry officer proceeded on charges 2 to 5 and found them proved. On 13.06.1988, the Disciplinary Authority (Controller General of Defence Accounts) dismissed the respondent from service with effect from 08.07.1988. The respondent's appeal to the Secretary (Defence Finance) & FA was dismissed on 31.10.1989. The respondent then filed OA No. 916 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which on 10.12.1996 set aside the enquiry report and dismissal orders, holding that proper opportunity was not given, the enquiry report was not furnished, and there was no evidence to sustain the charges. The Tribunal directed that the respondent be treated as having continued in service till superannuation and gave liberty to the Union to conduct a fresh enquiry. The Supreme Court considered whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence, whether non-furnishing of the enquiry report vitiated the proceedings, and whether the respondent was denied natural justice. The Union of India argued that the Tribunal acted as a court of appeal, that numerous adjournments were granted to the respondent, that he inspected records and was not prejudiced by lack of photocopies, that there was sufficient evidence, and that the law on non-furnishing of enquiry report was prospective. The respondent contended that proper opportunity was not granted, the enquiry report was not supplied, and there was no evidence. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not right. The enquiry proceedings started on 10.12.1985 and ended on 01.05.1987; out of 18 hearings the respondent attended only five. He was given opportunity to inspect records, and lack of photocopies did not cause prejudice. The enquiry officer examined evidence and concluded charges proved. The Court referred to Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 688 and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 797, holding that non-furnishing of enquiry report was prospective and therefore could not vitiate the earlier disciplinary order. The Disciplinary Authority duly considered the report and imposed penalty citing extreme gravity and lack of integrity; the Appellate Authority gave reasoned order. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal cannot substitute its own decision when enquiry is held in accordance with rules and punishment imposed considering relevant circumstances. It found fair treatment, lawful exercise of power, no abuse of power. It noted specific evidence: a signed receipt for Rs.36,600 and a pay-in-slip showing only Rs.20,000 deposited, proving misappropriation of Rs.16,600. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowed the Union's appeal, and dismissed the OA filed by the respondent before the CAT. The penalty of dismissal was upheld. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Judicial Review Scope - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii), Rule 3(1)(iii) - The Central Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over findings of a disciplinary authority and reappreciate evidence; its jurisdiction is limited to checking procedural regularity and existence of some evidence. The respondent, a cashier, was dismissed for misappropriation after an enquiry where he attended only five out of eighteen hearings and was given inspection of records. Held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own view and setting aside the penalty merely because it disagreed with the appreciation of evidence (Paras 1-5). B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Enquiry Report - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii), Rule 3(1)(iii) - Non-furnishing of the enquiry report to a delinquent employee violates natural justice but the rule in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 688, as affirmed in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 797, operates prospectively only. The enquiry report was not supplied to the respondent, but the disciplinary proceedings predated the prospective ruling, so the proceedings were not vitiated. Held that the respondent could not claim the benefit of the prospective law (Paras 1-5). C) Evidence - Sufficiency of Evidence - Misappropriation - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii), Rule 3(1)(iii) - A signed receipt for Rs.36,600 and a counterfoil of pay-in-slip showing deposit of only Rs.20,000 established misappropriation of the balance Rs.16,600. The enquiry officer had valid evidence before him, and the disciplinary and appellate authorities examined the entire record and found the charges proved. Held that there was no ground to hold that there was no evidence, and the Tribunal erred in concluding otherwise (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and setting aside the dismissal; whether non-furnishing of the enquiry report vitiated the disciplinary proceedings; whether the respondent was denied reasonable opportunity and natural justice
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's impugned order dated 10.12.1996, dismissed D.A. 916 of 1989 filed by respondent before CAT, upheld the penalty of dismissal from service, and imposed no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural regularity and existence of evidence
- not reappreciation of evidence
- non-furnishing of enquiry report violates natural justice but applies prospectively only
- Central Administrative Tribunal cannot act as appellate authority over disciplinary authority's findings
- if enquiry is conducted fairly with evidence
- punishment cannot be interfered with
