Tribunal cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence absent procedural illegality, perversity, or shocking disproportionality.

The applicant, a DTC Driver, was served with a charge-sheet dated 17.03.2020 alleging insubordination, use of abusive language and threatening behaviour towards a superior officer.

After considering his reply, the respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. Enquiry reports were submitted on 19.06.2020 and 29.06.2020, followed by a conclusion report dated 07.07.2020.

A show-cause notice proposing stoppage of the applicant’s next three annual increments with cumulative effect was issued on 27.07.2020. After considering his reply, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty on 14.09.2020.

The applicant’s statutory appeal was rejected by the Regional Manager on 30.12.2020.

He challenged the enquiry report, conclusion report, show-cause notice, penalty order and appellate order before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging procedural violations, breach of natural justice, perversity of findings, absence of a Presenting Officer, non-application of mind and disproportionality of penalty.

Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in breach of the prescribed procedure or the principles of natural justice.

Whether the enquiry was vitiated merely because a Presenting Officer was not appointed, or because the Enquiry Officer assumed the role of prosecutor.

Whether the findings of misconduct were perverse, contrary to the record, or based on no evidence.

Whether the disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to provide adequate reasons and whether the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the settled limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

Under Union of India v. B.C. Chaturvedi, (1995) 6 SCC 749, and Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612, judicial review examines the decision-making process—not the correctness of the decision—and permits interference for violation of natural justice, procedural illegality, lack of evidence, perversity or findings that no reasonable person could reach.

Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, prohibits re-appreciation of evidence and interference with factual findings where some legal evidence exists, except on recognised grounds such as procedural violation, irrelevant considerations or absence of evidence.

Under State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491, strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiries, provided the material has a reasonable nexus with the charge and the enquiry is fair.

Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670, establishes that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself, does not vitiate an enquiry; however, an Enquiry Officer must not act as prosecutor or lead the prosecution evidence.

The Tribunal also applied State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584, on the limited review of evidentiary sufficiency and perversity.

Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, regarding the requirement of a regular enquiry before imposing a penalty having cumulative and recurring financial consequences.

The quantum of punishment could be disturbed only if it shocked the conscience of the Tribunal, as recognised in B.C. Chaturvedi and P. Gunasekaran.

The Tribunal found that the charge-sheet was duly served, the applicant submitted a reply, an independent Enquiry Officer was appointed, and the applicant was afforded opportunities to inspect documents, cross-examine witnesses, lead defence evidence and obtain assistance from a co-worker or Labour Welfare Inspector, which he declined.

Accordingly, no violation of natural justice or prescribed procedure was established.

The absence of a Presenting Officer was not independently fatal under Ram Lakhan Sharma; the applicant also failed to demonstrate that the Enquiry Officer had acted as prosecutor or that any prejudice had resulted.

The findings were supported by the complaint of the Conductor, the antecedent warning letter and oral evidence recorded during the enquiry.

The applicant’s challenge essentially sought re-appreciation of evidence, which was impermissible because the findings were supported by some legal evidence and were not perverse.

The appellate order was held to reflect consideration of the appeal grounds and the disciplinary record; a speaking order need not reproduce the entire enquiry.

Finally, although stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was a major penalty requiring a regular enquiry, such enquiry had in fact been conducted.

Considering the proved allegations of insubordination, abusive language and threatening conduct towards a superior, the penalty was not so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Tribunal.

It held that the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority in accordance with the applicable procedure, the principles of natural justice were observed, the findings were based on legal evidence and were neither perverse nor unsupported, and the appellate order was reasoned.

The penalty of stoppage of the next three annual increments with cumulative effect was held proportionate and legally sustainable.

The Original Application was dismissed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.