Disciplinary findings are unsustainable when specific supervisory lapses lack evidence and witnesses are not examined.

The applicant, an Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer at the National Dairy Research Institute, was charged under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, with failing to scrutinise fellowship bills connected with alleged fraudulent payments.

The Inquiry Officer found that the applicant had no role in processing the bills in the Payment Section, but attributed a supervisory failure to him in the Audit Section.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by five stages for five years, with postponement of future increments. On review, that penalty was set aside and replaced with reduction by two stages for three years and six months, without postponement of future increments.

The applicant challenged the review order, charge-sheet and inquiry report, alleging, among other things, procedural unfairness, absence of witnesses and insufficient evidence of a specific supervisory lapse.

Whether the disciplinary findings and penalty could be sustained where the Inquiry Officer found that the applicant had no role in processing the disputed bills, but attributed a supervisory lapse to him without identifying clear and cogent material establishing that lapse.

Whether the inquiry was vitiated by procedural unfairness, including the absence of a witness list and the non-examination of witnesses, thereby denying the applicant an effective opportunity to test the evidence.

Whether the review order imposing a modified penalty was adequately reasoned.

Under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, disciplinary proceedings must comply with prescribed procedure, including the requirements concerning the charge-sheet, evidence and inquiry report under Rule 14.

A departmental inquiry must also satisfy natural justice: the employee must be informed of the charges, afforded a fair opportunity to test evidence relied upon and to present a defence.

The Tribunal relied on Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P., Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma and Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana for these principles.

Judicial review does not permit the Tribunal to act as an appellate authority or reappraise evidence, but permits intervention where there is a breach of statutory procedure or natural justice, a material procedural infirmity, or findings unsupported by adequate material.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s supervisory position alone could not establish misconduct: because the Inquiry Officer found no role for him in processing the bills, the alleged failure to supervise required clear material identifying the specific omission attributable to him, which the record did not adequately establish.

The charge-sheet lacked a witness list and no witness was examined; in the circumstances, the applicant was not given an effective opportunity to test the factual basis of the alleged negligence, and reliance on documentary evidence did not cure that deficiency.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant’s specific objections to the inquiry report had not been shown to have been adequately addressed, while the review order did not sufficiently explain the basis for the modified penalty.

These defects, considered together, rendered the proceedings and resulting penalty unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to restore his pay to the position that would have obtained absent the penalty and to provide consequential service benefits in accordance with the rules within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.