Disciplinary proceedings upheld when findings based on evidence and no natural justice violation.

The applicant, Sri Bhagirathi Sahoo, joined the Income-tax Department as a Stenographer, Grade-III, in 1985 and was subsequently promoted to Income-tax Officer in December 2006.

While serving as an Income-tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar, a notice was issued to him by Respondent No. 5 on July 16, 2018, to which he replied on November 6, 2018.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 issued a memorandum on April 1, 2019, based on a complaint by Smt. Sunila Padhi, though without providing a copy of the complaint.

The applicant filed a reply on April 15, 2019.

An order of inquiry was issued by Respondent No. 4 on August 21, 2019, under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, and a Presenting Officer was appointed.

The applicant submitted a reply to the Inquiry Officer (IO) on September 20, 2019, after receiving the P.O.'s note.

The IO examined a witness on September 27, 2019, in the applicant's presence, to which the applicant replied on September 30, 2019.

Respondent No. 4 forwarded the inquiry report dated November 8, 2019, to the applicant for explanation, which he submitted on November 18, 2019.

On November 28, 2019, Respondent No. 4 issued a punishment order for compulsory retirement of the applicant effective November 29, 2019, upholding charges 1 to 6 as proved and charge 7 as partly proved.

The punishment order also stipulated a grant of 75% of the pension otherwise due, and full gratuity.

The applicant appealed this order on December 18, 2019, to the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3).

The appeal was rejected by an order dated March 5, 2020, which found no merit in the applicant's submission.

1. Whether the order of compulsory retirement of the applicant by Respondent No. 4 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

2. Whether the order of pension cut passed by Respondent No. 4 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

3. Whether the order of rejection of the applicant's appeal by Respondent No. 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice due to the complainant's statement being recorded in the applicant's absence.

5. Whether the imposed penalty of compulsory retirement and pension cut is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles governing judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, as laid down by the Supreme Court in B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Anr. (1996 AIR 484), which limit judicial review to violations of natural justice, statutory rules, arbitrary conclusions, or findings based on no evidence, and prohibit re-appreciation of evidence or acting as a second court of appeal.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles governing judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekhran (2015 (2) SCC page 610), which limit judicial review to violations of natural justice, statutory rules, arbitrary conclusions, or findings based on no evidence, and prohibit re-appreciation of evidence or acting as a second court of appeal.

The Tribunal also considered the proportionality of punishment, guided by B. C. Chaturvedi, which allows interference if the penalty "shocks the conscience" but generally advises directing reconsideration rather than substituting the court’s own view.

The Tribunal also considered the proportionality of punishment, guided by V. Ramana V A.P.S.R.T.C & Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 3417), which allows interference if the penalty "shocks the conscience" but generally advises directing reconsideration rather than substituting the court’s own view.

Additionally, Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, regarding integrity, devotion to duty, and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant, were the bedrock of the disciplinary action.

Rule 11(vii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, concerning minor/major penalties, was the bedrock of the disciplinary action.

Rule 40(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, regarding pension in case of compulsory retirement, was the bedrock of the disciplinary action.

The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, noting that while the complainant's statement was recorded in the applicant's absence on October 14, 2019, the IO confronted the applicant with the statement for rebuttal, and the applicant did not request cross-examination.

The applicant subsequently admitted six out of seven charges on November 18, 2019.

This admission, coupled with the applicant's failure to seek cross-examination, indicated agreement with the complainant's averments and negated any procedural irregularity or natural justice violation.

The respondents argued that the applicant himself admitted issuing an illegal notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act and Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, and imposing an illegal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, demonstrating ulterior motives and harassment of a taxpayer, which aligns with his admitted charges.

The Appellate Authority’s rejection of the appeal, without elaborate reasons, was deemed valid because it agreed entirely with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, consistent with established legal principles that detailed reasons are not required in such cases.

Regarding the proportionality of the penalty, the Tribunal considered the applicant's flagrant violation of procedures, abuse of official position, and harassment of a lady taxpayer.

The penalty of compulsory retirement, being lesser than removal or dismissal, and the grant of 75% pension (within the 66%-100% range permitted by Rule 40(1) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972), were deemed proportionate and not shocking to the judicial conscience, given the gravity of the admitted misconduct.

The Tribunal held that there was no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings.

The punishment of compulsory retirement and the 25% pension cut imposed were found to be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, not shocking to the judicial conscience, and did not warrant interference.

The challenges to the order of compulsory retirement, the pension cut, and the rejection of the appeal were therefore rejected.