Tribunal Upholds Dismissal for Corruption as Judicial Review Precludes Re-evaluating Sufficiency of Evidence in Disciplinary Proceedings

The applicant, a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at the Lakshadweep Administration, was terminated following a vigilance inquiry into irregularities concerning entry permits.

The inquiry (Annexure A1) alleged that revenue losses occurred due to permits being issued without police clearance and that illegal commissions were funneled through the applicant's bank account to an Office Superintendent, P. Muradsha.

Based on these findings, FIR Crime No. 20/2022 was registered, and the applicant was arrested.

Following disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the applicant was found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from service via Annexure A12.

An appeal against this dismissal was rejected via Annexure A13.

The applicant challenged these orders before the Tribunal, contending it was a case of "no evidence" and that the punishment was disproportionate.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissal were based on sufficient evidence or constituted a case of "no evidence".

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service with a disqualification for future employment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The Tribunal applied the principles of judicial review in service matters as established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 484), which mandates that judicial review is not an appeal on merits but a review of the decision-making process to ensure fair treatment and compliance with natural justice.

Regarding the proportionality of punishment, the court relied on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma [2010 (6) SCC 555], holding that while punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, dismissal is the standard penalty in cases involving corruption or misappropriation.

The proceedings were governed by Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's "no evidence" argument, noting that the inquiry officer relied on specific bank transactions that the applicant himself admitted to in his defense (Annexure A6).

Although the applicant claimed these funds were for the Superintendent's domestic purchases, the Tribunal found this explanation suspicious and unproven, as there was no record of the money being returned or spent as claimed.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the testimony of SW3, who stated he personally paid the applicant bribes for entry permits.

The court reasoned that since there were materials on record—specifically bank statements and witness testimonies—to support the findings of the inquiry officer, the Tribunal could not interfere with the sufficiency of that evidence or the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority.

It further held that in instances of corruption, the punishment of dismissal is justified and not disproportionate.

The Original Application was dismissed, and the orders of termination (Annexure A12) and the appellate order (Annexure A13) were upheld.

No costs were awarded.