Disciplinary findings supported by some evidence are not subject to appellate reappraisal in judicial review.

The applicant, a retired Section Supervisor in the Department of Posts, was proceeded against regarding alleged irregularities in transactions involving MIS Accounts Nos. 17110, 17111 and 17112 and SB Account No. 436446 held by his father-in-law and late mother-in-law.

It was alleged that the applicant had improperly identified the depositor and facilitated withdrawal of ₹1,55,000 despite the depositor’s absence.

Initial departmental fact-finding reports dated 28.09.2005 and 03.10.2005 did not find fraudulent withdrawal attributable to the applicant.

Following subsequent complaints and further inquiries, a charge-sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging violation of Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 02.07.2010 holding both charges proved, after which the applicant was given an opportunity to submit his representation.

Since the applicant had retired on 31.12.2007, the matter was processed under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

After obtaining and supplying the UPSC advice, the competent authority imposed the penalty of withholding 10% of the applicant’s monthly pension for two years by order dated 20.08.2015.

The applicant’s review petition was rejected on 17.09.2019.

Whether the subsequent departmental inquiry was legally sustainable despite the earlier fact-finding reports which had not found fraud or misconduct attributable to the applicant?

Whether the Inquiry Officer’s findings that the charges were proved were supported by relevant evidence and could be interfered with in judicial review?

Whether withholding 10% of the applicant’s monthly pension for two years was disproportionate or otherwise liable to be set aside?

Whether the applicant was entitled to refund, interest on pensionary benefits, and compensation for alleged harassment?

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing major-penalty departmental proceedings, and Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, concerning standards of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a government servant.

Since the applicant had retired, the penalty proceedings were considered under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which permits withholding or withdrawal of pension in cases of proved grave misconduct or negligence.

The Tribunal reiterated the settled principle that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited: the reviewing authority does not re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority, but examines whether the findings are based on some relevant evidence, are not perverse, and whether the procedure complied with natural justice and statutory requirements.

It also applied the principle that a penalty may be interfered with only where it is wholly disproportionate, mala fide, based on extraneous considerations, or otherwise legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the earlier fact-finding reports did not prevent the disciplinary authority from ordering a fresh inquiry because subsequent complaints and material allegedly disclosed aspects not examined earlier.

The later inquiry was supported by witness statements, transaction records, medical documents and forensic material, and was not based solely on the repeated complaint of the applicant’s father-in-law.

The applicant had received the charge-sheet, participated in the inquiry, received the Inquiry Officer’s report, submitted his representation, and was afforded an opportunity to respond to the UPSC advice before imposition of the penalty.

The fact that the signatures tallied with the specimen signatures did not conclusively disprove the charge, since the allegations concerned the circumstances of identification and withdrawal and not merely forgery of signatures.

The applicant’s arguments regarding the absence of direct evidence of misappropriation, his prior conduct as an identifier, and the earlier exonerating reports would require re-appreciation of evidence, which was outside the Tribunal’s limited judicial-review jurisdiction in the absence of perversity, lack of evidence, or procedural illegality.

The penalty was also found neither wholly disproportionate nor motivated by mala fides or extraneous considerations.

It held that the subsequent departmental inquiry and the findings of misconduct were legally sustainable, that no violation of natural justice or statutory procedure had been established, and that the penalty of withholding 10% of monthly pension for two years was not disproportionate.

Consequently, the challenge to the orders dated 20.08.2015 and 17.09.2019 was rejected.

The claims for refund of deducted pension, interest on pensionary benefits and retiral dues, and compensation for alleged harassment were also denied.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.