Dushyant Singh vs Union Of India

st
Reserved on 01 September, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 690 of 2011


th
Allahabad this the 14 day of October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A



Dushyant Singh, S/o Shri Ganga Ram Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Kolana (Chunar)
District-Mirzapur (U.P.) Residing at the Quarter allotted to him in the premises of
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu District- Jaunpur (U.P.)
Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources &
Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

2. Joint Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, A-28, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi.

rd
3. Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Lekhraj Panna, 3
Floor, Sector-2, Vikash Nagar, Lucknow-226 022.

4. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu, District – Jaunpur.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Krishna Dutt Mishra

O R D E R

The applicant has filed the O.A under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the following relief(s): -
(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order of removal dated 18.10.2010, passed by the Respondent
No.3, Appellate Order dated 20.04.2011, passed by the Respondent No. 2
as well as Office order dated 03.05.2011, passed by the Respondent No.4
(Annexure Nos.-A-1, A-2 & A-3 respectively to Compilation No. 'I' of this
petition.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential
benefits thereof as if no such illegal order of removal would have ever
been passed, within a period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. C
Paragraph No. 8 (ii)(A) :- to issue a writ, order of direction in the nature
of Certiorari holding the provision contained in the paragraph No. 5 of the
st
impugned circular dated 1 January, 1990, passed by the Respondents,
irrational and ultra virus and quashing the same (Annexure No.A-18 to
Compilation No. 'I' of this petition.
MANISH MEHROTRA

2

"Paragraph No. 8(ii) (B): - to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow wards of the petitioner
namely Mr. Avinash Singh and Miss Supriya Singh admission to their
th th
respective higher classes viz. X and XI in the Jawahar Navodya
Vidyalya, Maribhu District-Jaunpur (U.P.) for which they have already
th th
qualified the examinations of class IX and X respectively in the last
academic session and the respondents be further directed to impart
teaching regularly to them in future on usual terms and conditions."
(iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and
circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper.
(iv) to award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that
the applicant had been working as Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.)
[English] and posted under the control of respondent No. 4. The
applicant was charge sheeted vide memorandum dated 28.06.2005
(annexure A-4). The applicant denied the charges and thereafter the
Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3) decided to hold a detailed
inquiry and appointed Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer. As per
applicant, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in illegal and arbitrary
manner and submitted its enquiry report dated 07.05.2010 holding both
the charge against the applicant as proved. The enquiry report was
served upon the applicant on 21.05.2010. The applicant filed a
representation against the enquiry report on 08.07.2010. However, the
Disciplinary Authority without considering the points raised by the
applicant in his representation, passed the impugned order of removal
dated 18.10.2010 (annexure A-1). The applicant preferred an Appeal
(annexure A-7) on 19.11.2010 before the Appellate Authority (respondent
No. 2). The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal of applicant by order
dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure A-2). Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of
respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
4. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that
MANISH MEHROTRA
the applicant - Sri Dushyant Singh, TGT (Eng.) JNV, Jaunpur on
24.02.2005 misbehaved with Sri A.K. Mishra, TGT (Maths) of the above
vidyalaya and he abruptly attacked upon him using abusive and un-

3

parliamentary language. Sri Mishra got hurt physically and mentally. The
matter was reported to the Principal who called upon both the teachers in
his chamber compromise note written by the applicant the situation could
somehow be tackled and normalized. On the next day at about 5.30 a.m.
when Mrs. Gayatri Mishra the wife of Sh. Α.Κ. Mishra was roaming in the
campus for morning walk, the applicant again misbehaved with Mrs.
Gayatri Mishra beaten and assaulted her. Due to this disorderly behaviour
and atrocities on the part of the applicant, the peaceful atmosphere of the
Vidyalaya was disturbed on 24th and 25th Feb. 2005. Shri Dushyant
Singh in subversive of peace and discipline set a bad precedence among
the staff and students. His riotous disorderly behavior, misbehaving and
cruelly beating to Shri A.K. Mishra and her wife Smt. Gayatri Mishra were
the acts, highly unbecoming on his part as in the educational residential
institution the behavior of co-the teacher is example to the pupil and his
role is loco parantice. Apart from it while working as TGT (Eng.) at
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, District Jaunpur, the applicant has not been
discharging his duties and responsibilities properly and he was in the
habit of disturbing the congenial and peaceful atmosphere of the
institution exhibiting his immoral behaviour, insubordination and willful
disobedience of the orders of superior authority. The applicant in
subversive of discipline and grossly exhibiting his becoming behaviour and
conduct, when the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jaunpur issued
a Memo dated 16.02.2005 asking the applicant not to leave the station
without prior permission and getting the leave sanctioned by the
competent authority and, in a derogatory manner, the applicant
mentioned a very insulting remark to the Principal "You are an idiot
Principal". This remark on the part of the applicant per se established
that his continuance further is prejudicial to the interest of the
organization as he cannot maintain the relation of Master and Servant.
MANISH MEHROTRA
Taking into account the above misdeed on the part of the applicant it was
prima facie established that the applicant is guilty of violating the rule

4

3(I), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 applicable to the
employees of the Samiti and accordingly a departmental proceeding
under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the
applicant and he was placed under suspension by the order dated
14.03.2005. A charge sheet dated 28.06.2005 was issued to the
applicant. On denial of the charges, Sh. J.S. Chauhan, Principal, Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lucknow was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to the
charges levelled against applicant. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report
dated 07.05.2010 in which he concluded that on the basis of evidence
adduced during the inquiry, he arrived to the conclusion that the applicant
failed to maintain devotion to duty and he acted in a manner of
unbecoming of a government servant committing the misconduct as
contained in Article-I and Article-II of the memorandum of charge dated
28.06.2005. The applicant had got full opportunity of defence and during
the inquiry, the prosecution succeeded to establish the charges levelled
against him. The Inquiry Officer finally recorded that the charge of Article-
I and II are proved. After taking the representation from the applicant
dated 08.07.2010, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of
removal from service vide order dated 18.10.2010. The punishment
awarded the by Disciplinary Authority, as per the respondents, is not
grave and harsh and it is commensurate to the gravity of misconduct
committed by the respondents. The applicant preferred and appeal to the
Appellate Authority against the punishment order and the Appellate
Authority after careful perusal of the appeal, so preferred by the
applicant, vide appellate order dated 20.04.2011 upheld the punishment
awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondents have also
submitted that through this O.A., the applicant has sought plural relief(s).
Hence, the O.A. being devoid of merit may be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on
MANISH MEHROTRA
record and considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the
parties.

5

6. This O.A. pertains to the year 2011 when the applicant was aged
about ‘54’ years. Therefore, the relief No. 2 with regard to reinstatement
of applicant in service cannot be considered at this stage. Hence, the
same has become infructuous. The relief for which applicant is entitled is
that after quashing of the order of removal, he will be entitled for
consequential benefits. Subsequently, relief No. 8 (ii) [a] and [b] by a
flux of time also becomes infructuous with regard to admission of children
of the applicant in Class 10 and 11. The only relief which is addressed by
the applicant is relief No. 1 and subsequent consequential relief. The
applicant has challenged the impugned removal order dated 18.10.2010,
appellate order dated 20.04.2011 and office order dated 03.05.2011.
First, we have considered the office order dated 03.05.2011, which is
regarding retention of government accommodation. Counsel for the
applicant submitted that the said quarter is vacated. Accordingly, relief
against the order dated 03.05.2011 is also become infructuous.
Therefore, we are only concise to removal order dated 18.10.2010 and
appellate order dated 20.04.2011.

7. From perusal of charge sheet dated 28.06.2005, it appears that
two articles of charges were framed, which are quoted herein below: -
Article-I
“
That the said Shri Dushyant Singh while working as TGT (Eng.) at
JNV, District Jaunpur attacked and beaten Sh. A.K. Mishra, TGT (Maths)
on 24.02.2005 and further assaulted and brutally beaten Mrs. Gayatri
Mishra, W/o Sh. A.K. Mishra in the campus of the above Vidyalaya on
25.02.2005 when she was roaming for the morning walk.
Article-II
That the said Sh. Dushyant Singh while working as TGT (Eng) at
JNV, District Jaunpur neglected his duties and committed willful
insubordination and disobedience of the orders of the superior authority
with the utter disregard of the code of conduct and made derogatory
remarks on the communication of the superior officers.
The aforesaid acts constitute a gross misconduct and unbecoming
of a Govt. Servant in contravention to the provisions of CCS Conduct
Rules, 1964, Rule 3(I), (ii) and (iii).”
MANISH MEHROTRA

The list of relied upon documents is also annexed as annexure-3 of
the charge sheet and list of witnesses is also annexed as annexure-4 with

6

the charge sheet. The submission of counsel for the applicant is that all
the relied upon documents were not provided to the applicant and the
witnesses who are mentioned, were not examined as well as not given the
opportunity to cross examine. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer
while discussion Article II as referred the relevant document and after
preliminary inquiry on 14.12.2005, it is revealed that the inquiry was
conducted on various dates. The documents which have been referred as
well as witnesses are also referred in the inquiry report and in the defence
document, two documents namely compromise note dated 24.02.2005
and preliminary inquiry report of Shri D.P. Singh, Assistant Commissioner,
consisting of four pages, were relied upon. In the defence witness, the
applicant has called for Shri D.P. Singh, Assistant Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Lucknow, which was marked
as DW-1. The Inquiry Officer has further observed that the charged
official was given adequate opportunity to cross examine the said
witnesses as well as his own witness DW-1. The right which was
accruing to delinquent employee has been exercised by examining the
witness, which is also evident from the inquiry report as well as record of
this O.A. The article-I is basically related to attack and beaten Shri A.K.
Mishra, TGT (Maths) on 24.02.2005 and further assaulting his wife Smt.
Gayatri Mishra on 25.02.2005 while she was roaming for morning walk.
Smt. Gayatri Mishra appeared as said witness No. 2 and also cross
examined by the delinquent. The independent witnesses were also cross
examined and a detailed deliberation has been given by the Inquiry
Officer and Shri D.P. Singh, Assistant Commissioner – DW-1 was also
examined, as evident from record. After analyzing the facts of case and
relied upon documents, the Inquiry Officer proved the article-I of the
charges. The article-II is related to wilful insubordination and
disobedience of the order of superior authority with utter disregard to the
MANISH MEHROTRA
code of conduct and made derogatory remarks to the communication of
superior officer. The relied upon documents which have been discussed

7

while considering the article-II, the behaviour and conduct as has been
observed by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the observation made by
the applicant to the Principal that "You are an idiot Principal", charge No.
2 was also proved. In reply to the charge sheet, the applicant vide letter
dated 08.07.2010 has submitted his representation consisting of 48 pages
along with 06 annexures. From perusal of representation and grounds
taken therein, it is revealed that the same has been considered by the
Disciplinary Authority. The preliminary objection of the applicant that the
inquiry proceeding was enunciated that a written complaint of
complainant Smt. Gayatri Mishra W/o Shri A.K. Mishra, T.G.T. Maths. The
other point which has been raised by the applicant’s counsel that the
charge official demanded through his application the report of preliminary
objection made by Shri D.P. Singh, which was subsequently supplied to
the applicant. He further pleaded that the Inquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority cannot be relied upon the preliminary inquiry report
until and unless author of the same has not been examined. From the
record, it appears that the preliminary inquiry was not considered by the
Inquiry Officer rather than he has proceeded on the basis of relied upon
document and list of witnesses, mentioned in the charge sheet.
Moreover, Shri D.P. Singh who was the author of preliminary inquiry was
also examined as defence witness. The further objection has been raised
is that without giving opportunity, the inquiry was completed. From the
record, it appears that the opportunity was given and the persons, who
were named in his representation, were also examined by the applicant.
Another fact which pleaded with regard to contradictory statements given
before the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Civil Court, Jaunpur by Smt. Gayatri
Mishra and before the Inquiry Officer, cannot be accepted in the
disciplinary proceeding as Smt. Gayatri Mishra was examined as a witness
and the incident which took place against her was also witnessed by some
MANISH MEHROTRA
persons names of whom were also provided in the list of witnesses.
Further, the disciplinary proceedings are in the nature of preponderance

8

of probability while the criminal proceedings are in the nature ‘prove
beyond doubt’, which cannot be equated. We have also gone through the
order of Disciplinary Authority where in para-4, the main contention and
other submission of charged official has been considered carefully from
para-A to para-G and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has held guilty
of misconduct and imposed penalty of removal from service vide
impugned order dated 18.10.2010. The appeal so raised by the applicant
on 19.11.2010 has duly been considered by the Appellate Authority i.e.
Joint Commissioner (Admn.) on 20.04.2011 and confirmed the penalty
order so passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

8. While exercising the power of judicial review of punishment arising
out of disciplinary proceeding, is strictly confined to reviewing the decision
making process rather than re-adjudicating the merits of case. Scope of
judicial review and ground for interference is limited to Tribunal/Courts.
It can be interfered with disciplinary proceeding under limited
circumstances i.e. violation of natural justice, procedure illegality, no
evidence or perverse, lack of jurisdiction or malafide.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ Union of India and
others V. Dalbir Singh (2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 321 ’ has
dealt with the similar controversy, as involved in the present O.A. The
relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are quoted herein below: -
“ 20 . A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Rattan
Singh4 was dealing with the issue of non-examination of passengers when
the allegation against the conductor was non-issuance of the tickets. This
Court held that in a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of
evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and that all
materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.
There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus
and credibility. This Court held as under: (SCC p. 493, para 4)
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and
sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not
MANISH MEHROTRA
apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are
permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has
reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities
and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material

9

and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under
the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite
decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law
and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial
approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or
considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair
play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of
independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding,
even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the
courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that
passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought
before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The
"residuum" rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon
certain passages from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent
nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The
simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in
the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in
a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom
will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the
finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence
in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into
because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record."

21 . This Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran had laid down the
broad parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review. The
Court held as under: (SCC pp. 616-17. paras 12-13)
"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
enquiry 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 powers under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-
appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry 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,
MANISH MEHROTRA
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
or extraneous considerations,

10

(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) re-appreciate the evidence:
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, 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."
22 . In another judgment reported as B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, it
was held that the 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
The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made. The Court is to examine as to
whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of
natural justice are complied with. This Court held as under: (SCC pp. 759-
60, paras 12-13)
"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 enquiry is conducted on charges
of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to
determine whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer or
whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the
MANISH MEHROTRA
power to hold enquiry 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 the Evidence Act nor of proof of
fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When

11

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
enquiry 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
enquiry, 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 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."

10. From perusal of charge sheet, inquiry report, order of Disciplinary
Authority, it appears that there is no procedural illegality in the same and
it is also revealed that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the
charged official i.e. the applicant.

11. In view of the above discussion and the legal position settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh (suipra), we are in
considered opinion that there is no merit in the O.A. and same deserves
to be dismissed. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. All
the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.


(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)


/M.M/
MANISH MEHROTRA