Tribunals cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence where the inquiry is lawful and findings rest on some evidence.

The applicant, appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM) in 1995, was posted at Dedusar Branch Post Office.

During an inspection on 21 November 2009, an alleged cash shortage of ₹78,326 in MNAREGA accounts was detected. The applicant allegedly failed to explain the shortage, left the office during the inspection, and subsequently misbehaved with and assaulted the inspecting Inspector of Posts.

He was placed off duty on 25 November 2009 and was served a charge-sheet on 2 September 2011 for the cash-shortage irregularities and misconduct with the inspecting officer.

The applicant denied the charges and participated in the departmental inquiry conducted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

He was permitted to have a defence assistant, was supplied the requested documents, cross-examined witnesses, and was furnished the inquiry report for making a representation.

The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved. After considering the inquiry report and the applicant’s representation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on 9 October 2014. The applicant’s appeal was rejected on 25 August 2015.

Whether the departmental inquiry and the orders of removal and rejection of appeal were vitiated by violation of natural justice, procedural irregularity, bias, or absence of evidence.

Whether the Tribunal could reappreciate the evidence and reassess the factual findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.

Whether the penalty of removal from service was legally unsustainable or disproportionate to the misconduct found proved.

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing major-penalty departmental inquiries, and the principles of natural justice requiring notice, disclosure of relevant material, opportunity to participate, cross-examination, and representation against the inquiry report.

It relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, holding that the disciplinary authority is the primary judge of facts and that courts or tribunals may interfere only where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from patent legal error.

It further relied on State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612, which limits judicial review to errors of law, procedural unfairness, violation of natural justice, findings based on no evidence, or conclusions that no reasonable person could reach.

The Tribunal also referred to State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563, reiterating that judicial review does not permit reappreciation of evidence and extends to examining compliance with natural justice, statutory procedure, evidentiary support, perversity, and proportionality of penalty.

The applicant’s reliance on Rule 12(2) of the GDS Rules concerning review of an off-duty order and Rule 217 of P&T Volume V was not accepted as grounds for invalidating the disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had participated in the inquiry, nominated a defence assistant, received the requested documents, cross-examined witnesses, and was given the inquiry report and an opportunity to submit his representation.

Accordingly, there was no violation of natural justice or Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The Tribunal held that the charge was not one of independent misappropriation but concerned the failure to account for the cash shortage of ₹78,326 during inspection and the applicant’s alleged misconduct towards the inspecting officer.

The later submission of withdrawal forms could not, in the Tribunal’s view, retrospectively cure the alleged failure to explain or verify the shortage at the time of inspection.

The evidence of the inspecting officer and other prosecution witnesses constituted some evidence supporting the findings of misconduct.

The Tribunal therefore declined to reassess the credibility or sufficiency of that evidence, observing that it could not act as an appellate authority over the departmental findings.

Since the proceedings were conducted by the competent authority, followed the prescribed procedure, and were supported by evidence, the case did not fall within the recognised grounds for judicial review.

It held that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, that the principles of natural justice were complied with, and that the findings of misconduct were supported by evidence.

The Tribunal declined to reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the disciplinary authority’s assessment.

The challenge to the removal order dated 9 October 2014 and appellate order dated 25 August 2015 was rejected, and OA No. 215/2016 was dismissed without any order as to costs.