Courts cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence where the inquiry is fair and findings have evidentiary support.

The applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher (English), was charged with assaulting a colleague and the colleague’s wife, and with neglect of duty, insubordination and making derogatory remarks to a superior.

Following a departmental inquiry, both articles of charge were found proved; the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal on 18 October 2010, and the Appellate Authority upheld that order on 20 April 2011

The applicant challenged the inquiry and the resulting orders, alleging, among other things, that relied-upon documents and witnesses were not properly made available and that he had not received a fair opportunity to defend himself

By the time the Tribunal considered the application, reinstatement, his children’s admission relief and the challenge concerning accommodation had become infructuous

1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry or the removal and appellate orders were vitiated by procedural illegality or breach of natural justice

2. Whether the Tribunal could interfere with the disciplinary findings and penalty under the applicable limits on judicial review

3. Whether any of the other reliefs sought remained live for determination

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to challenge the service orders

Rule 3(1)(i)–(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, was cited as the standard of conduct allegedly breached, and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as the basis for the disciplinary proceeding

Applying Union of India v. Dalbir Singh, (2021) 11 SCC 321, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the Tribunal stated that judicial review examines the decision-making process, including competence, compliance with procedure and natural justice, and whether findings rest on evidence; it does not ordinarily permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the reviewing court’s view for that of the disciplinary authority

The Tribunal found that the inquiry record showed the applicant had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, including the complainant and the author of the preliminary inquiry report, who was called as a defence witness.

It also found that the Inquiry Officer relied on the evidence and documents identified in the charge proceedings, and that the applicant’s representation had been considered by the Disciplinary Authority.

On that record, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations of procedural illegality and denial of opportunity were not established and that the findings were not shown to be unsupported by evidence or otherwise reviewable under the limited judicial-review standard

It held that the reinstatement relief had become infructuous; the reliefs concerning the children’s admissions and the accommodation order had also become infructuous

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications were deemed disposed of