Sufficiency of Witness Testimony Over Medical Evidence in Proving Disciplinary Misconduct Under Inebriation

The applicant, a Helper Khalasi (Group ‘D’), was served a major penalty charge sheet on 24.04.2009 for using abusive language against the Chief Crew Controller in an inebriated state and deserting duty on 12.04.2009

Following an inquiry report dated 28.07.2009, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 26.08.2009 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement

The applicant’s departmental appeal was rejected on 09.10.2009

The applicant challenged these orders before the Tribunal, contending it was a case of "no evidence" due to the lack of a medical practitioner's report to prove intoxication and procedural irregularities regarding the supply of documents

1. Whether the findings of the inquiry officer and the subsequent punishment order were based on "no evidence" in the absence of a medical report for intoxication

2. Whether the Tribunal can interfere with the quantum of punishment or re-appreciate evidence under the scope of judicial review

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of limited judicial review in disciplinary matters as established by the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which held that Tribunals are not appellate authorities and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence

It followed the "Wednesbury principles" of reasonableness as cited in Om Kumar v. Union of India

For the specific demand of documents, it relied on Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, stating that non-supply of irrelevant documents does not vitiate proceedings

It applied State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, affirming that once evidence is accepted by departmental authorities, the Court should not interfere with findings of fact

The Tribunal found that the applicant's "no evidence" plea was unsustainable because a witness confirmed seeing the applicant using abusive language in an inebriated state

The court reasoned that a medical test is not mandatory when a person's behavior clearly manifests intoxication, especially since the applicant deserted the office after the incident, making an immediate medical exam unfeasible

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not firmly deny being drunk but focused on the technicality of the missing medical report

Applying the settled law, the Tribunal held that since the inquiry followed due procedure and the applicant was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, there was no violation of natural justice

It further reasoned that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not "shockingly disproportionate" to the misconduct of abusing a senior officer, thus barring judicial interference

The Tribunal held that it cannot act as a second court of appeal to re-evaluate evidence

The Original Application was dismissed, and the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were upheld

No order as to costs was made