Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
1. We have heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rajesh Khare appears for the respondents.
2. Sri Lodai Ram - the petitioner, serving as Gram Sewak Mail Career-cum-Mail Deliverer at Unch Gaon, Branch Post Office, Dalawarganj, Jaunpur, was put off from service, on certain charges, namely that the petitioner had falsely witnessed the withdrawals of certain account holders maintained in the Post Office. A charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 29.4.1999, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The enquiry officer examined the witnesses, including the depositors. They deposed that they had signed on the withdrawal forms, but they had not got it witnessed from the petitioner. The amount was taken by Sri Anil Kumar Singh - the Post Master, with the assurance that he will return the amount, but Sri Anil Kumar Singh did not pay back the amount, to the depositors.
3. The charges were found to be proved, on which a copy of the enquiry report dated 6.6.2002, was given to the petitioner. By order dated 28.5.2003, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was removed from service. His Appeal and Revision were dismissed on 31.12.2004 and 3.5.2005 respectively.
4. We have perused the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 22.4.2010, in Original Application No. 118 of 2006, by which it has dismissed the Original Application on the ground that the power of judicial review in disciplinary matter is confined only to decision making process alone, Following the judgments in State of U.P. Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another [AIR 2010 SC 137] and Union of India and others Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra [2010 (1) SCC (L&S) 212], it was held that applicant has to establish real prejudice caused by non-furnishing of a particular document. The judicial review is not an appeal from decision, but review of the manner in which the decisions is made. The power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the conclusion, which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the eye of law. After relying upon decision in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [1996 SCC (L&S) 80], it was that the Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own independent findings on evidence. The Original Application was dismissed.
5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, is the Court of first instance for the Government servants in the matters, which fall within its power and jurisdiction. The Tribunal has replaced the Civil Court, and also the High Court in the initial exercises of its jurisdiction. In L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others [AIR 1997 SC 1125], the Supreme Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal acts as the court of first instance, and has been set up, to give speedy relief to the Government employees aggrieved in service matters.
6. The Tribunal does not have a limited jurisdiction in service matters. It cannot refuse to interfere, without looking into the facts, and the issues raised before it both on facts and law as well as mixed questions of facts and law. In order to find out, whether the statutory procedure for disciplinary enquiry was complied with, and that the order serves the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal must look into the necessary facts and the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority. A bare minimum requirement in such case would be the consideration of charges, the reply given by the delinquent Government servant, and the compliance of the statutory rules serving the principles of natural justice and the proportionality in award of punishment. The Tribunal, if any grounds are raised, is also required to consider as to whether the documents and oral evidence produced have proved the charges and whether such evidence was admissible and reliable. The Tribunal cannot arrive at a finding of serving the principles of natural justice, which includes admissibility, and reliability of evidence as well as the application of mind by the enquiry officer to the charges, and the evidence led before him, without going into the facts of the case.
7. In the present case, the Tribunal after giving the dates, on which the charge sheet and enquiry report was submitted, and the orders passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities, straightaway proceeded to consider the principles of law, without reference to the allegations on which charges were based by which they were proved. The Tribunal has not considered whether the disciplinary authority followed the rules of natural justice, and the punishment is disproportionate to the charges. The judgment of the Supreme Court and the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum, without reference to the facts of the case.
8. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 22.4.2010 in Original Application No. 118 of 2006 is set aside. The Central Administrative Tribunal is directed to decide the matter afresh, keeping in mind, the observations made above.
Order Date :- 8.2.2012 nethra