R POOVAI POOVANNAN vs M/o Chemicals And Fertilizers

1 OA/310/00195/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00195/2017
th
Dated this the 13 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
R. Poovai Poovannan,
S/o P. Rajagopalan,
No.45, Palani Street,
Tiruvattipuram Post,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. P. Mani
Vs.
1. The President
Governing Council of CIPET &
Secretary (C & PC) & Appellate
Authority, Government of India,
Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers,
Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
2. The Director General/ Disciplinary Authority,
Central Institute of Plastic,
Engineering & Technology (CIPET),
Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals,
Guindy, Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su Srinivasan, SCGSC for R. 1
Mr. V. Perumal for R.2

2 OA/310/00195/2017
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial
Member)
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the
following relief:
“Call for the records relating to the order
st
dated 03.07.2015 passed by the 1
respondent in the appeal and final order of
compulsory retirement dated 03.05.2013
nd
passed by the 2 respondent, quash the same
and direct the respondents to reinstate the
applicant in service with all monetary benefits
and continuity of service and to pass such
further or other orders as this Tribunal may
deem fit and proper on the circumstances of
the case and thus render justice”
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of
the OA are as follows:
The Applicant states that he holds an M.Sc. (Engineering) in
Polymer Science and Technology from Anna University,
Guindy, Chennai. He was initially appointed as Technical
Assistant in the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and
Technology (CIPET), Guindy, Chennai, on 19.08.1994, and
was subsequently promoted as Technical Officer and
transferred to CIPET, Mysore, Karnataka, on 21.07.2005. He
worked at Mysore from July 2007 to March 2008 and was

3 OA/310/00195/2017
thereafter transferred to CIPET, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
While serving at Bhopal, the Applicant was issued a charge
memo dated 26.08.2009 containing, inter alia, the following
charges: (i) raising two invoices bearing the same Invoice No.
3127 for the same party, one for Rs.11,800/- and another for
Rs.4,05,187/-, forwarding the higher-value invoice to the
customer and retaining the lower-value invoice for
departmental accounts, thereby allegedly causing a loss of
Rs.3,93,387/-; (ii) issuing 38 Inspection Certificates for
which Rs.1,28,313/- was chargeable, but raising invoices for
only Rs.74,954/-, thereby allegedly causing a loss of
Rs.53,359/-; (iii) failure to maintain proper records and
issuance of an invoice on letterhead; and (iv) failure to
maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and misuse
of his position. The Applicant denied the charges, contending
that they were vague and unsupported by material evidence.
The Disciplinary Authority, the 2nd Respondent, accepted
the Enquiry Officer’s report and imposed the penalty of
compulsory retirement without properly considering the
Applicant’s defence and the deficiencies pointed out in the
enquiry report. The Applicant contends that the final order is

4 OA/310/00195/2017
unsustainable as material grounds and vital issues raised by
him were not considered. Though the Applicant raised
various grounds in his appeal before the 1st Respondent,
challenging the final order, the appeal was erroneously
dismissed and the punishment confirmed without recording
definite findings on the grounds raised. The Applicant
further submits that he was made a scapegoat for the fraud
allegedly committed by H.N. Aravind, against whom a
separate disciplinary proceeding was initiated, resulting in
his dismissal from service. Hence, the Applicant has filed the
present O.A. challenging the impugned orders passed by the
1st and 2nd Respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the
Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer erred in
holding that the Applicant had raised two invoices bearing
Invoice No.3127. The genuine Invoice No.3127 dated
25.09.2007 for Rs.11,800/- is supported by the cash receipt,
work order, test certificate, invoice and despatch entry. In
contrast, no corresponding records exist for the Invoice
No.3127 dated 19.10.2007 for Rs.4,05,187/-, indicating that

5 OA/310/00195/2017
the latter was a forged invoice created by H.N. Aravind, who
admittedly realised the said amount and was subsequently
dismissed from service in separate disciplinary proceedings.
The genuine invoice related to M/s. Umapathy Patel,
whereas the alleged forged invoice was issued to M/s. Jain
Irrigations Systems Limited; the works covered by the two
invoices were also different, and the latter did not contain
any work order.
4. The learned counsel further submits that H.N. Aravind,
Technical Assistant, was independently proceeded against
and held responsible for the aforesaid irregularities and was
dismissed from service, while the Applicant was examined as
a departmental witness in those proceedings. Therefore, the
Applicant could not have been proceeded against for the
same acts. The authorities ought to have considered the
admissions made by H.N. Aravind in the said proceedings
and held that the Applicant had not raised the alleged
second invoice.

6 OA/310/00195/2017
5. With regard to the second charge, the learned counsel
submits that the authorities failed to consider that: (i)
although the Applicant issued the inspection reports, he
neither prepared nor issued the invoices; (ii) the inspection
reports did not contain the inspection charges/fees; (iii) after
issuing the reports, the Applicant handed over the relevant
work to his successor, who raised the invoices; (iv) while the
inspection reports were produced, the corresponding invoices
were not produced; and (v) the details of the work performed
and the applicable charges could be ascertained only from
the invoices, which were not produced. Hence, the finding
that the Applicant caused the alleged financial loss is
unsupported by the record.
6. The learned counsel submits that the authorities erred
in holding that the Applicant failed to maintain proper
records without identifying the specific records or registers
allegedly not maintained. They also failed to consider the
statements of witnesses and documents forming part of the
criminal proceedings merely because they were not formally

7 OA/310/00195/2017
marked in the disciplinary enquiry. Such material, being
part of the court records, ought to have been considered on
its merits rather than rejected on technical grounds.
Consequently, the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate
Authorities are liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the
disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by undue and
unexplained delay and mala fides. The charge memo was
issued even before receipt of the CVC first-stage advice; the
CVC second-stage advice was obtained after a delay of about
one year and seven months; the final order was passed about
five months after receipt of the second-stage advice and
nearly four years after issuance of the charge memo. He
further points out that members of the Micro-Level
Committee who conducted the preliminary investigation and
prepared the Micro-Level Investigation Report were
subsequently appointed as the Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension
of bias. Though the Applicant objected to their appointment

8 OA/310/00195/2017
and complained to the Disciplinary Authority regarding their
biased conduct, the same was not properly considered. The
rejection of the Applicant’s objection on the ground that the
disciplinary proceedings were not based on the preliminary
enquiry report, despite the report being marked/relied upon
in the enquiry, is unsustainable.
8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on
the following judgments and prayed for the relief sought by
the applicant in the OA:
(i) order dated 18.12.2023 of the Principal Bench of this
Tribunal in OA No.1176/2018, wherein he relied on the
following para:
“5.3 Admittedly, the photocopy of the documents
were supplied to the applicant without
handwriting expert report dated 22.09.2016. The
manner in which the enquiry has been
conducted is not in consonance with the
provisions of Rule 14. The respondent No.2
admittedly sent the photocopy of questioned
documents on 01.09.2016 and 08.09.2016 to
CFSL Shimla for obtaining handwriting expert
report. The inquiry proceeding was held on
03.11.2016. The P.O. presented photocopies of
documents as per Annexure III of charge sheet
dated 16.09.2016. The photocopies of said
documents are unauthentic and inadmissible
and as such are not readable in evidence…..”

9 OA/310/00195/2017
(ii) Judgment, dated 25.04.2007 of the Hon’ble Allahabad
High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs Assistant General
Manager, Syndicate Bank for the proposition that photostat
copies cannot be treated as secondary evidence and not
admissible in evidence.
“17……….Thus from a bare reading of the
aforesaid illustrations appended to section 63 of
Evidence Act it is clear that mere filing of
photostat copy of document unless it is proved
by other evidence showing that same is copied or
prepared from original documents, the same
cannot be treated to be secondary evidence and
accordingly is not admissible as such in
evidence. Therefore, the photostat copies
produced by the Management before inquiry
officer cannot be said to be copies of original
records in absence of such proof of the same,
particularly when the petitioner has disputed
and emphatically denied it. And cannot be
treated to be secondary evidence and as such
cannot be admissible in evidence, accordingly
same cannot be made basis for Recording any
finding to establish the guilt of petitioner in such
disciplinary inquiry. Thus, the finding recorded
by inquiry officer on that basis is wholly without
any valid and legal evidence and not H
sustainable in the eye of law.
(iii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.M.
Kulshrestha Vs Union Bank of India, reported in 2025 INSC
744, for the following reasons:
“21. Once, the first stage advice of the CVC was
called, it was the duty of the respondent-Bank to
consider the advice and then take a decision to
serve the chargesheet. Thus, the actions of the
respondent-Bank are mala fide and arbitrary.
The appellant was sought to be victimised at the
fag end of his unblemished career of 34 years.

10 OA/310/00195/2017
22. The High Court committed a gross error by
holding that Regulation 19 of the 1976
Regulations was not mandatory. This issue was
irrelevant, as the Bank had itself acknowledged
that in the facts of the case, it was necessary to
seek first-stage advice from the CVC. It is also
pertinent to note that no record was placed in
the High Court to indicate that the CVC report
had been received.
23. Now, at this stage, it will be unjust to allow
the respondent-Bank to resume disciplinary
proceedings. Almost six years have passed since
the superannuation of the Appellant.”
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents,
relying upon the reply statement, vehemently opposed the
Applicant’s contentions. He denied that the Applicant had
signed only Invoice No.3127 dated 25.09.2007 for
Rs.11,800/- and had not signed the invoice dated
19.10.2007 for Rs.4,05,187/-. According to the Respondents,
the Applicant himself prepared and signed two invoices
bearing the same number but different amounts, forwarded
the lesser-value invoice to the Accounts Department of
CIPET, Mysore, and thereby caused a financial loss of
Rs.3,93,387/-. The duly authenticated copy of the higher-
value invoice, retained by the customer, was produced
during the enquiry.

11 OA/310/00195/2017
10. The learned counsel submitted that though H.N.
Aravind, Technician Grade-I, committed fraud by opening a
bank account in the name of “CIPET Polyconsultant
Engineers (CIPET Mysore)” and diverting customer payments
thereto, such fraud was facilitated by the authorization given
by the Applicant and Dr. B. Ramaraj, then Manager
(Testing), to Aravind to issue test certificates. He denied that
Aravind had repaid the entire fraudulently realised amount.
The fact that the Applicant appeared as a Management
witness in the proceedings against Aravind does not, by
itself, establish his innocence.
11. With regard to the second charge, the learned counsel
submitted that the finding was based on documentary
evidence and not on conjectures. Exhibits SD-03 series and
SD-04 series, comprising inspection reports and particulars
of inspection fees payable in respect of the work carried out
for M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., established that the
Applicant under-invoiced the actual charges and thereby
caused a financial loss of Rs.53,359/- to the Institute.

12 OA/310/00195/2017
12. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Applicant, being responsible for the Testing Department,
failed to properly maintain the records and registers relating
to the issue of invoices. He issued an invoice on ordinary
letterhead, contrary to the established practice of CIPET, and
the amount was not accounted for in the Institute’s books.
Further, though the Applicant received certain cheques
through the inward register during August and September
2007, the same were not accounted for in the books of
CIPET, Mysore. These lapses established the misconduct
alleged under the third Article of Charge.
13. The allegation that the Disciplinary Authority failed to
consider the Applicant’s defence and the deficiencies in the
Enquiry Officer’s report was denied. The learned counsel
submitted that the Disciplinary Authority duly considered
the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case and the
objections raised by the Applicant before passing the final
order. Hence, the order cannot be said to have been passed
without considering the Applicant’s defence.

13 OA/310/00195/2017
14. The learned counsel denied that the Applicant was
made a scapegoat for the fraud committed by H.N. Aravind.
He submitted that the charges against the Applicant and
Aravind were distinct. Aravind was proceeded against for
conducting private business, opening a fraudulent bank
account in the name of CIPET Polyconsultant Engineers,
misusing his official position, diverting cheques and demand
drafts payable to CIPET and misappropriating the Institute’s
funds.
15. On the other hand, the charge against the Applicant
was that, while functioning as Senior Technical Officer, he
prepared and signed two invoices bearing the same Invoice
No.3127 for different amounts, furnished the higher-value
invoice to the customer and the lower-value invoice to the
Accounts Department, thereby causing financial loss to
CIPET. The learned counsel pointed out that the Applicant,
while appearing as a Management witness in Aravind’s
disciplinary proceedings, had himself confirmed the
authenticity of Invoice No.3127 dated 19.10.2007 for

14 OA/310/00195/2017
Rs.4,05,187/- in favour of M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.,
Jalgaon, and admitted that it was duly signed and issued by
him. Therefore, his subsequent claim of innocence is
untenable.
16. The learned counsel submitted that the present
proceedings are not in the nature of an appeal against the
orders of the Disciplinary or Appellate Authority. The
jurisdiction of the Tribunal in disciplinary matters is limited
to examining the procedural fairness and legality of the
decision-making process. The Tribunal cannot re-appreciate
the evidence or substitute its own findings unless the
conclusions of the Enquiry Officer or competent authority
are arbitrary, perverse or unsupported by evidence.
According to him, the Applicant has failed to establish any
such infirmity in the present case.
17. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Applicant had suppressed material facts in the Original
Application. He pointed out that the Special Judge for CBI

15 OA/310/00195/2017
Cases, Bengaluru, in Spl.C.C. No.337/2010, by judgment
dated 19.03.2013, found the Applicant and others guilty and
convicted them for the offences charged. He also submitted
that the suit filed by the Respondents in O.S. No.364/2009
was decreed in their favour. In view of these circumstances,
he contended that the Applicant’s case is devoid of merit and
prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
18. The applicant has filed a Rejoinder to which the
respondents have filed a detailed reply. We have perused the
same.
19. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and
the materials made available on record. We have also
carefully gone through the case laws relied upon by the
respective counsel.
20. The Applicant while he was working as Technical
Officer (processing) CIPET Centre Bhopal issued with a

16 OA/310/00195/2017
Charge Memo, dated 26.08.2009. The said Charge Memo
containing the following Articles of charge:
Article – I:
That the said Mr. R. Poovai Poovannan while
functioning as Tech. Officer (Processing/Testing)
at CIPET Mysore has raised two different
invoices under his signature bearing the same
invoice number but with two different amounts.
The first copy of the invoice which was submitted
to the customer shows an inflated amount
whereas the office copy maintained at CIPET
Mysore and a copy given to Accounts
Department for the amount to be realized from
the party is as much little. Thus, he has misused
his official position and wilfully prepared two
different invoices to the same party causing
direct financial loss to the Institute to the tune of
Rs.3,93,387/-
Article – II
That R. Poovai Poovannan while functioning as
Tech. Officer (Processing/ Testing) at CIPET,
Mysore has issued 38 Nos. Inspection Reports
under his signature during the year 2007-08 to
M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Jalgaon. The
monetary value of the invoices works out to
Rs.1,28,313/- whereas an amount of Rs.74,954
has been realized. As a result, Mr. R. Poovai
Poovannan has deliberately under-invoiced the
inspection reports and caused financial loss to
the institute to the tune of Rs.53,359/-.
Article III
That Mr. R. Poovai Poovannan while functioning
as Tech. Officer (Processing/ Testing) at CIPET
Mysore has not maintained proper records /
procedures / systems with respect to
preparation of invoices and ensuring realization
of the same at CIPET, Mysore.

17 OA/310/00195/2017
Article IV
That the said Mr. R. Poovai Poovannan while
functioning as Technical Officer
(Processing/Testing) at CIPET Mysore has failed
to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to
duties and misused his position by not following
the internal procedures and not maintained
proper records and committed misconduct,
unfaithfulness, dishonesty and
untrustworthiness. The above acts of the said
Mr. R. Poovai Poovannan violate the requirement
of maintaining absolute integrity, devotion to
duty, unbecoming of a CIPET employee and
conduct prejudicial to the interest of the
employer organization causing unreliability on
the faithfulness of the employee
This is gross violation of the sub rule 1(i), (ii) and
(iii) of the rule 3 of CCS conduct rules 1964 as
also provision no. 15(1)(a) of Govt. of India
decisions vide G.O.I. Dept. of Per. & Trg.
O.M.No.11013/2/99-Estt. (AO), dated 24th
February, 1999 and violation of CIPET Conduct
and Disciplinary Rule 56(a), (b), & (c) and rule
58(n). His said act constitutes misconduct under
sub rule 23(1), (3), (4) and (5) of rule 3C of CCS
conduct rules 1964 and sub rule (1), (3), (4) and
(5) of rule 59 of CIPET Conduct and Discipline
rules.
21. The Applicant submitted his representation dated
10.09.2009 denying the charges in the charge memo.
Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were
appointed. On consideration of the proceedings and
materials on record, it is found that the enquiry was
conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure,

18 OA/310/00195/2017
applicable rules and principles of natural justice, with no
violation of rules.
22. The records establish that the Applicant fully
participated in the enquiry and was afforded reasonable
opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry was conducted in
accordance with the CIPET C&D Rules read with the CCS
(CCA) Rules and the principles of natural justice.The Inquiry
Officer, by report dated 14.05.2010, held all four charges
proved. The enquiry report was furnished to the Applicant on
05.07.2010, pursuant to which he submitted his
representation on 31.07.2010. Upon consideration of the
report and the Applicant’s representation, the Disciplinary
Authority concurred with the findings and proposed
imposition of an appropriate major penalty.
23. As the Applicant was a Group-A Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority, in accordance with the CVC
guidelines, forwarded its tentative views to the CVC. By O.M.
dated 21.11.2012, the CVC advised imposition of a suitable

19 OA/310/00195/2017
major penalty. The tentative views and CVC advice were
thereafter furnished to the Applicant, who submitted his
representation on 25.01.2013. Upon consideration of the
representation and the evidence on record, the Disciplinary
Authority concluded that the charges in the charge memo
dated 26.08.2009 stood proved and imposed the major
penalty of compulsory retirement by order dated 03.05.2013.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant preferred an
appeal before the 1st Respondent/Appellate Authority. After
considering the appeal, enquiry report, order of the
Disciplinary Authority and the entire record, the Appellate
Authority concluded that the penalty imposed was
commensurate with the gravity of the charges and rejected
the appeal. It is also found that no procedural irregularity or
violation of principles of natural justice occurred during the
disciplinary proceedings.
24. It is also relevant that, upon completion of the
investigation, the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Bengaluru,
registered a case and filed a charge sheet against H.N.

20 OA/310/00195/2017
Aravind (A1), Smt. Bindu, wife of H.N. Aravind (A2), Dr. B.
Ramaraj (A3) and the Applicant, Shri R. Poovai Poovannan
(A4), in Spl.C.C. No.337/2010 before the Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Bengaluru. By judgment dated 19.03.2013, the
Trial Court convicted the accused, including the Applicant,
upon finding the charges proved and imposed sentences of
imprisonment and fine. It was submitted before this Tribunal
that the Applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal
No.398/2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
against the said judgment, which is stated to be pending.
25. We also seen from the records that Original Suit in
O.S.No.364/2009 was filed by CIPET Centre, Mysuru
(Respondents) before Hon'ble Principle Senior Civil Judge
and CJM Mysore against the applicant and 5 others for
recovering a sum of Rs.1,30,87,823/- together with cost and
interest @ 18% per annum. After trail, the Hon’ble Court
has awarded decree on 28.10.2016 that the plaintiff is
entitled for Rs.1,30,87,823/- with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of the suit till realization. Also, directed the

21 OA/310/00195/2017
applicant & 5 others to pay the cost of the suit. Till this
date, the Applicant has never cared to pay the amount as
mentioned in the decree and never cared to pay the amount
to the respondents. We also find these information’s were
not disclosed by the applicant in the OA.
26. We have carefully considered the judgments relied upon
by the applicant and are of the view that the same are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
27. It is also well settled that the scope of judicial review in
matters relating to disciplinary proceedings is limited. The
Court or Tribunal does not ordinarily sit as an appellate
authority over the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer or
the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Interference is
warranted only in circumstances such as violation of the
principles of natural justice, non-compliance with the
applicable statutory rules, or where the findings are wholly
unsupported by evidence or are otherwise vitiated by a
legally recognised infirmity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Kishore Yadav , reported in

22 OA/310/00195/2017
(2006) 5 SCC 673 , has reiterated the limited scope of
judicial review in disciplinary matters and observed as
under:
“4. On a consideration of the entire materials placed before
the authorities, they came to the conclusion that the order of
dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a Writ
Petition was filed challenging the correctness of the order of
dismissal, the High Court interfered with the order of
dismissal on the ground that the acts complained of were
sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the respondent herein
and for that no punishment could be attributed to the
respondent. In our opinion, the order passed by the High
Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but the
error of judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not
justified in allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the
order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with
all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a
settled law that the High Court has limited scope of
interference in the administrative action of the State in
exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order
of punishment of dismissal from service should not be
disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious
in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt.
We have also carefully gone through the Enquiry Report
and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and of the
Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given
by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority. In short, the judgment of the
High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no
other option except to set aside the order passed by the High
Court and restore the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from
service. It is ordered accordingly. The Civil Appeal stands
allowed.”

23 OA/310/00195/2017
28. In the case of Union of India Vs Upendra Singh
reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that the scope judicial review in disciplinary
enquiry is very limited and observed as under:
“6.In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry
the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges
framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges,
if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be
said to have been made out or the charges framed are
contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no
jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the
charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the
disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges
is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed,
even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if
the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no
jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the
correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority as the case may be.”
29. The principles have been further discussed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs.
Union of India and Others (1995 (6) SCC 749 ) wherein it
was observed as under:
“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

24 OA/310/00195/2017
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.”
30. As stated above the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
judgements has held that the Tribunal or the Court cannot
sit in appeal over the decision of disciplinary authority nor
can substitute its view in place of the said authority. The
disciplinary authority was within his right to issue
appropriate punishment as he may have deemed fit and
proper. The Tribunal is not competent to go into the
quantum of punishment inflicted by the disciplinary
authority unless it is shockingly disproportionate. Tribunal
cannot sit as an appellate authority on the decision of the
disciplinary authority or exercise their jurisdiction of judicial
review in disciplinary matters if there is no apparent
illegality.
31. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we

25 OA/310/00195/2017
find no illegality, procedural irregularity, violation of the
principles of natural justice, or perversity in the orders
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the
competent authorities are supported by the materials
available on record and cannot be said to be arbitrary or
unreasonable. We, therefore, find no justification for
exercising the limited power of judicial review available to
this Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned orders do not
warrant any interference.
32. In the above circumstance, based on the judgements
outlined above, we find that the applicant has not made out
a valid case for our interference. In the result, the OA is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
13. 10.2026
mas

Digitally signed by M A
SUNDAR
Date: 2026.11.02 16:33:57
+05'30'
M A SUNDAR