Departmental inquiry findings supported by evidence and not perverse are not subject to reappreciation in judicial review.

The original applicant, Vijay Shankar, a Postal Assistant at Mirzapur Head Post Office, was accused of gross negligence leading to the loss of Rs. 13,80,000/- on September 5, 2008, from the State Bank of India, Dankeenganj Branch, while the cash was in his custody

An FIR was lodged against him under Section 409 IPC

A preliminary inquiry was conducted, followed by a charge-sheet and suspension on January 19, 2009

A departmental inquiry was initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

On February 28, 2011, the original applicant was dismissed from service

His statutory appeal was dismissed on March 21, 2012, and a subsequent petition was rejected on February 11, 2013

During the pendency of the Original Application, the original applicant and his son Vinay Kumar passed away, and his widow and other sons were substituted

1. Whether the departmental proceedings leading to the dismissal of the original applicant were vitiated due to non-consideration of material and vital evidence, specifically CCTV footage showing the involvement of an unidentified person

2. Whether the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority were based on assumptions, perverse, or lacked proper reasoning, thus violating principles of natural justice

3. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate or shocking given the nature of the alleged misconduct

The court primarily applied the principles governing judicial review in disciplinary matters, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 749, which states that judicial review is not an appeal but a review of the manner in which a decision is made, and the Court/Tribunal can only interfere if the inquiry violates natural justice, statutory rules, or if findings are based on no evidence or are such as no reasonable person would reach

Union of India v. Upendra Singh, 1994(3)SCC 357, which limits the scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries to situations where no misconduct is made out, charges are contrary to law, or the tribunal cannot inquire into the truth of charges or correctness of findings

The Tribunal found that the departmental inquiry was conducted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the original applicant was provided with adequate opportunity to present his defence and cross-examine witnesses, ensuring compliance with natural justice

The court observed that the charge was gross negligence in safeguarding public money, not theft, and that the primary responsibility for the cash's safety rested with the original applicant, irrespective of third-party involvement

The Tribunal held that the non-examination of CCTV footage did not render the admitted facts of the charged official unbelievable, noting that the original applicant's conduct, particularly his delay in reporting the loss to bank officials or police, indicated a serious lapse

Applying the principles from B.C. Chaturvedi and Upendra Singh, the Tribunal reiterated its limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own opinion for that of the departmental authorities unless there is a clear violation of statutory rules, natural justice, or perverse findings

The court noted that the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities had independently examined the matter and found no procedural irregularity or illegality, and their orders were not mechanical

It was held that the departmental proceedings leading to the dismissal were not vitiated, as the inquiry complied with natural justice and the findings were supported by evidence

The plea regarding CCTV footage was rejected, as the central charge was negligence in safeguarding public money, which was the original applicant's primary responsibility

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the serious misconduct of losing a significant amount of public money due to negligence and that the circumstances of hardship after the original applicant's death, though sympathetic, could not override settled legal principles

All associated MAs were also disposed of