Disciplinary action requires clear evidence of assigned duty and lapse.

The applicant, R.P. Bhardwaj, a Public Health Inspector, was issued a memorandum dated 13.09.2007 proposing a departmental inquiry

The charges against him were failing to conduct regular raids leading to disease outbreaks and not attending joint food hygiene raids on 29.01.2005 and 02.02.2005

The Inquiry Officer (IO) found Charge No.1 partly proved

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect via order dated 11.11.2013

The applicant's appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 23.05.2014, communicated on 16.06.2014

The applicant challenged these orders, arguing the disciplinary proceedings violated natural justice and constitutional guarantees, and that the IO's findings lacked evidence

He contended he was not solely responsible for raids, there were multiple Public Health Inspectors in the zone, and the non-cooperation of the food hygiene truck driver hindered his duties

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings, culminating in the penalty, were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and Constitutional guarantees

2. Whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, specifically regarding Charge No.1 being partly proved, were supported by cogent and reliable evidence

3. Whether the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority applied their minds properly in passing the impugned orders

The Tribunal applied the principles governing judicial review in disciplinary matters.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, establishing that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not re-appreciation of evidence

It also cited Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, which held that interference in departmental enquiry findings is permissible only when findings are based on no evidence or suffer from perversity

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to provide documentary evidence establishing that the duty of conducting raids across the entire zone was specifically entrusted to the applicant alone

The evidence of Dr. K.K. Bhalla (PW-1) also did not conclusively prove the applicant's sole responsibility for raids in the zone

The court noted that the inquiry record highlighted the availability of only one food hygiene truck and the applicant's complaints about the driver's non-cooperation, circumstances that directly affected his ability to conduct raids

The Tribunal concluded that these crucial aspects were not adequately addressed by the Inquiry Officer or the disciplinary authorities.

Therefore, the finding that Charge No.1 was "partly proved" lacked reliable and sufficient evidence

The Tribunal concluded that the order dated 11.11.2013 imposing the penalty of 'stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect' and the Appellate Authority's order dated 23.05.2014 (communicated on 16.06.2014) could not be sustained and were thus quashed and set aside

The respondents were directed to restore the applicant's increment and grant all consequential benefits within eight weeks from the receipt of the order

There was no order as to costs