Subsequent ratification by the competent authority validates disciplinary action initially taken by an allegedly incompetent authority.

The applicant joined the National Horticulture Board (“NHB”) as a Programme Executive on 22 March 1990 and was subsequently granted the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000–13,500 with retrospective effect from 22 March 2002.

He was also promoted as Assistant Director, though the promotion was later withdrawn and he continued as Programme Executive at the Guwahati Centre.

While posted at Guwahati, he was alleged to have improperly inspected and recommended horticultural projects for subsidy, released double subsidy for one project through two banks, released subsidies through a bank whose licence had allegedly been cancelled, and failed to scrutinise project costs and eligibility properly.

A charge-sheet was issued on 17 August 2006, followed by disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The applicant alleged denial of relevant documents, non-payment or underpayment of subsistence allowance, denial of adequate opportunity of defence, and an ex parte inquiry.

The Managing Director dismissed him from service on 22 May 2012, and the appeal was rejected by the Managing Committee on 24 September 2012/1 October 2012.

The applicant challenged both orders and additionally sought refixation of pay and consequential revision of subsistence allowance under the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

1. Whether the Managing Director was competent under the NHB Staff Rules to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose the penalty of dismissal upon the applicant, notwithstanding Rule 6(a), which designated the Managing Committee as the appointing authority for Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts.

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal order were vitiated by violation of natural justice, including non-supply of documents, denial of opportunity to defend, ex parte inquiry, and alleged non-payment or underpayment of subsistence allowance.

3. Whether the Tribunal could interfere with the findings or punishment in exercise of judicial review over disciplinary proceedings.

4. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration of refixation of pay and revision of subsistence allowance under the Sixth Central Pay Commission with effect from 1 January 2006.

Article 311(1) of the Constitution prohibits dismissal or removal of a civil servant by an authority subordinate to the authority that appointed him.

Rule 6(a) of the NHB Staff Rules designates the Managing Committee as the appointing authority for Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts, while the Managing Director is the appointing authority for other posts, subject to the prescribed governmental approval.

Rule 4 permits the Executive/Managing Director to issue instructions for implementing the Staff Rules and exercising control over staff, subject to the stipulated approvals.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and ordinarily does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the disciplinary authority’s view; interference is justified where there is a material procedural violation, breach of natural justice, perversity, mala fides, statutory illegality, or shockingly disproportionate punishment.

The Tribunal relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , (1995) 6 SCC 749; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora , (1997) 3 SCC 72; R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab , (1999) 8 SCC 90; and Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank , (2003) 3 SCC 583, concerning the limited scope of judicial review and proportionality of punishment.

It also relied on Maharashtra State Mining Corporation v. Sunil , AIR 2006 SC 1923, for the principle that an otherwise invalid act of an incompetent authority may be retrospectively validated by ratification of the competent authority.

The principles in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , 1999 SCC (L&S) 810, regarding simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings, differing standards of proof, and the effect of non-payment of subsistence allowance, were also considered.

The Tribunal treated the principal controversy as the competence of the Managing Director to impose dismissal.

Although Rule 6(a) identified the Managing Committee as the appointing authority for Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts, the Tribunal considered the respondents’ reliance on Rule 4, the NHB’s delegation resolutions, and the Managing Committee’s appellate order upholding the Managing Director’s action.

It further noted that the Special Judge, CBI, had accepted the Managing Director’s competence to grant prosecution sanction and had treated him as superior in rank and competent to remove the applicant.

Relying on the doctrine of ratification, the Tribunal held that the Managing Committee’s appellate consideration and affirmation cured any alleged defect in the Managing Director’s authority.

On the disciplinary process, the Tribunal found no substantively established procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice warranting interference, and held that the appellate order was reasoned and speaking.

In view of the restricted scope of judicial review, it declined to reassess the evidence concerning the subsidy irregularities or the proportionality of dismissal.

However, since the respondents had not filed a specific reply to the applicant’s claim for Sixth CPC pay refixation and revised subsistence allowance, the Tribunal directed them to examine that claim and pass a reasoned order.

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order regarding the applicant’s entitlement to Sixth CPC pay refixation, including revised subsistence allowance, from 1 January 2006 until his dismissal, and to pay any arrears found admissible under the applicable rules.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs; all connected miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.