Repeated frivolous petitions aimed at delaying disciplinary proceedings warrant dismissal and costs.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant, Girish Kumar D, Inspector of Posts, on 30.06.2021 for allegedly borrowing money from colleagues and subordinates while working as Assistant Manager IPPB, Doddaballapur Branch.

The applicant filed a bias petition, leading to the replacement of the Inquiry Officer (IO) twice.

The fourth IO, Shri Hoovappa G (Respondent No. 4), was appointed on 18.04.2024.

During the inquiry, on 20.11.2024, the Presenting Officer introduced a disputed document, a photocopy of an email exchange, which the applicant alleged lacked authentication and custodianship, violating Rule 5(iii) of Postal Volume 3.

The IO allowed the document, leading the applicant to submit a Bias Petition on 23.11.2024, which was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on 19.12.2024.

A subsequent Review Petition to Respondent No. 2 on 23.12.2024 was also rejected on 07.01.2025 (Annexure A1).

The applicant, a party-in-person, alleged the IO was biased and acted arbitrarily, guiding witnesses and accepting the disputed document without proper authentication.

The respondents argued that the email printout was admissible as per routine practice and electronic authentication, and PW-24 (Superintendent of Post Offices, Channapatna Division) had jurisdiction as he conducted an investigation based on the email alert.

The respondents further contended that the applicant was engaging in dilatory tactics, having filed numerous bias petitions (6 bias petitions and 5 representations between 26.07.2022 and 31.05.2024), causing delays in the inquiry proceedings.

An earlier OA (No. 170/000241/2024) filed by the applicant challenging a previous bias petition rejection was dismissed by the CAT on 18.04.2024, with directions to conclude the inquiry within twelve weeks.

Whether the rejection of the applicant's bias petition and review petition by Respondents Nos. 3 and 2, respectively, was legally justifiable?

Whether the Inquiry Officer acted with bias by allowing a disputed document (photocopy of an email) without authentication and proper custodianship, by allowing a witness (PW-24) to use personal notes, and by allegedly guiding other witnesses (PW-14, PW-19, PW-16)?

Whether the applicant's repeated filing of bias petitions and representations constitutes dilatory tactics to prolong disciplinary proceedings?

The court primarily applied principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries, emphasizing that the High Court, and by extension the CAT, acts as a court of judicial review, not an appellate authority.

It relied on established Supreme Court precedents, including State of A.P. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723), which limits judicial interference to cases where the inquiry is held by an incompetent authority, procedures are not followed, or natural justice rules are violated.

The court also cited Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618, stating that the adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court if the inquiry was properly held.

Further, State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 clarified that the departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts if the inquiry is properly held, and interference is warranted only if findings are based on no evidence, are wholly arbitrary, or are influenced by irrelevant considerations.

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 affirmed that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts, and courts do not re-appreciate evidence to substitute their findings.

The court also invoked Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, outlining specific grounds for High Court interference under Articles 226/227, such as violations of natural justice or arbitrary conclusions, while explicitly prohibiting re-appreciation of evidence or interference with conclusions based on law.

The court recognized that a bias petition can be considered if the inquiry officer acts as a prosecutor, as in Ashok Dangi v. Department of Home Police and Others (Writ Petition No. 18391 of 2022), but emphasized that this is a question of fact.

The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 2's order of 07.01.2025, which rejected the applicant's review petition, was detailed and addressed each issue raised by the applicant.

The rejection provided cogent reasons regarding the admissibility of the email printout, stating that PW-24 had custodianship as he investigated based on the email alert, and such documents are routine in office work with legal validity for electronic authentication.

The Tribunal also accepted the explanation that PW-24, being retired, was allowed to use personal notes to recollect memory, and the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine.

Furthermore, the explanations for the IO's interactions with PW-14 and PW-19 were deemed appropriate efforts to clarify questions and correct clerical errors due to language difficulties, rather than evidence of bias or guidance towards specific outcomes.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's history of filing numerous petitions (6 bias petitions and 5 representations), concluding that this indicated a pattern of dilatory tactics to impede the disciplinary proceedings, an observation previously made by Respondent No. 2.

The Tribunal referenced its dismissal of a prior OA by the applicant concerning a similar challenge to a bias petition rejection.

Applying the established legal principles, the Tribunal concluded there was no evidence of bias or procedural impropriety by the Inquiry Officer, and the respondents had meticulously followed rules.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order rejecting the applicant's bias petition and review petition was justifiable, as there was no evidence of bias by the Inquiry Officer or violation of procedural norms.

The applicant's actions were determined to be dilatory tactics.

Consequently, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the applicant for engaging in frivolous litigation and wasting the court's time.