SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS IS LIMITED TO DECISION-MAKING PROCESS RATHER THAN MERITS.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant at Barpeta Head Post Office, was placed under suspension on 21.07.2011 following a criminal investigation regarding the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification

As a condition of suspension, he was ordered not to leave his headquarters at Barpeta without prior permission

While under suspension, the applicant went on a religious tour ("Chilla") and remained absent from headquarters from 11.02.2012 to 10.06.2012 without authorization

Additionally, he failed to receive official registered communications during this period

Consequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Despite the applicant’s plea of religious necessity and subsequent acquittal in the criminal case by the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority found him guilty and awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement on 10.01.2014, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 08.07.2014

1. Whether the unauthorized departure from headquarters during suspension and failure to receive official communications constitutes "unbecoming of a Government servant" under Conduct Rules

2. Whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the quantum of punishment (compulsory retirement) warrant interference by the Tribunal under the scope of judicial review

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of withheld suspension allowances and salary

The court applied Rule 19 and Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding suspension and disciplinary procedures

It relied on Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which mandates that every government servant shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the Tribunal followed principles established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, and Subrata Nath v. Union of India, which hold that judicial review is not an appeal on merits but a review of the decision-making process, and that courts should not re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence

The Tribunal noted that the applicant admitted to leaving the headquarters without prior permission, justifying it as a religious obligation organized "suddenly"

The court reasoned that such unauthorized absence directly violated the conditions of his suspension and Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules

Relying on the P. Gunasekaran and B.C. Chaturvedi precedents, the Tribunal observed that the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts and that the adequacy of evidence cannot be canvassed at the judicial review stage

Since the enquiry followed prescribed procedures and the findings were based on the applicant's own admission of absence, the court found no procedural irregularity or perversity

The Tribunal further held that the punishment of compulsory retirement did not "shock the conscience" given the gravity of the misconduct in maintaining departmental discipline

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to release any outstanding suspension allowances (50% for the specified period) and pending salary/benefits, if due, to the applicant within three months; the O.A. was partly allowed only to the extent of the release of these financial dues