JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J.
1. This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 21.7.1999 in Writ Petition No. 19020 of 1996 whereby the writ petition of the respondent has been allowed and the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority dated 7.7.1995 and 19.3.1996 respectively dismissing the petitioner from service have been quashed and it has been left open to the respondent to hold inquiry afresh or from the stage before the submission of the inquiry report after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
2. The respondent Aneep Mehta was initially appointed as Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (appellant) in the year 1971. Subsequently he was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant ( in short HGA) and continued to work with the appellant.. According to the service conditions of the respondent he was entitled for leave transfer concession (in short referred as LTC) as provided in the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulation 1960 (in short referred to as the 1960 Regulation). In the year 1992 the petitioner claimed advance and subsequently reimbursement of the remaining amount for LTC undertaken by him and his family from 16.5.1992 till 26.5.1992. The total amount claimed in the LTC claim form was Rs. 10692/- (Rs. Ten thousand six hundred and ninety two only). The respondent had initially claimed advance of Rs. 8500/- and upon return he submitted the LTC claim form and claimed the balance amount of Rs. 2,192/-. The journey as shown in the claim bill was for (i) 16.5.92-17.5.92 Allahabad to New Delhi, (ii) 19.5.92-25.5.92 New Delhi to Jammu Tavi, (iii) 22.5.92-23.5.92 Jammu Tavi to Dehradun, (iv) 24.5.92 Dehradun to Meerut city and (v)25.5.92 to 26.5.92 Meerut city to Allahabad. All the legs of the journey were undertaken in II AC sleeper class.
3. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1993 alleging that the LTC bill dated 6.6.1992 for the journey undertaken from 16.5.1992 to 26.5.1992 were actually not undertaken and a false claim has been raised in order to make wrongful gains. The respondent submitted his reply to the charge sheet and denied the charges. In the mean time, the wife of the respondent had died and therefore in his reply to the charge sheet he mentioned that initially the details were not traceable but after searching the belongings of his late wife he was able to get the ticket number which he mentioned in his reply. It was also mentioned that the ticket numbers 72122- 72127 mentioned were of the first class which . were changed into II AC sleeper Class and also extended for further journey by ticket No. 02356 on the journey. The respondent also gave the details of his relatives at different places where he had stayed. He also mentioned in his reply that after reaching New Delhi where the family stayed for three days, in between he had to returned to Allahabad for urgent work on 17.5.92 and returned the same day and joined his family on 18.5.1992 for further journey. The inquiry continued and in the mean time, the petitioner asked for certain document etc. After inquiry and verification from the railway authority regarding the details of the ticket mentioned by the respondent the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 13.5.1994 holding that the respondent was guilty of submitting a false bill as he had never undertaken any journey as alleged in the claim bill and therefore, having attempted to make wrongful gain from the Corporation is honesty and integrity had failed. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 26.10.94 proposing to award punishment of dismissal. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.12.94 to the disciplinary authority. However, the show cause submitted by the respondent did not find favour to the disciplinary authority and he passed the order of punishment, dated 7.7.95 imposing penalty of removal from service under Regulation 39(1)(f) of the 1960 Regulations. The respondent preferred statutory appeal to the Managing Director which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.99. Aggrieved by the said two orders the writ petition was filed by the respondent which has been allowed by the learned single Judge holding that the finding recorded by the inquiry officer was perverse and there was not enough material to prove the charge and also that an important and vital document had been suppressed by the employer and also there was non application of mind by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The learned single Judge on the above findings set aside both the orders and directed for either holding for a fresh inquiry or from the stage before the submission of inquiry report after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned single Judge, the present special appeal has been filed by the disciplinary authority.
4. We have heard Sri Manish Goel, learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person and have also perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant, in short has raised the following three contentions: firstly there was sufficient material available on record of the inquiry to establish the charge leveled against the respondent and therefore, even if one or two documents were not considered, it would not vitiate either the inquiry report or the order of punishment based upon the said inquiry report. The next contention is that the judgment of the learned single Judge is beyond the scope of judicial review permissible under Article 226 of Constitution. Lastly it is contended that show cause notice with regard to quantum of punishment was given to the respondent and therefore, no fault could be found with the punishment awarded as being disproportionate or incommensurate with the gravity of the charge leveled.
6. In support of these contentions learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following authorities:
(A) SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
1. 1970 SLR 321 Kshirode Behari Chakravarty v. The Union of India (Paragraph-4)
2. State of A.P. and Ors. v. Shree Rama Rao (Paragraph -7)
3. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. A. Rajapandian (Paragraphs 8,9 & 10)
4. Rai Bareli Khsetriya Gramin Bank v. Bhola Nath Singh and Ors. (Paragraphs 4,5 &6)
5. JT 1999 (6) SC 6 U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. v. Musai Ram and Ors. (Paragraph-9)
6. Bank of India and Anr. v. Degala Suryanarayana (Paragraphs 11 & 13)
7. 1997 (75) FLR 949 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Arora ( At page 954 & 955) (B) QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT - SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE:
1. Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane ( Paragraph-12)
2. RM, UPSRTC, Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal and Anr. (Paragraph 10)
3. RM. RSRTC v. Sohan Lal (Para 10 & 11) (C) NON- RECORDING OF REASONS- NOT ULTRAVIRES
1. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. P.D. Grover (Paragraph 13)
2. Buxi Sardari Lal v. Union of India (Paragraph 8)
7. On the other hand the respondent has contended that the inquiry was vitiated as he was hot afforded due opportunity and that the most vital and important document was withheld by the appellant in the inquiry as well as when brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority the same was not considered thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. In these circumstances it is contended that the judgment of the learned single Judge is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.
8. Before entering into the contentions raised by the appellant it would be appropriate to examine the contentions raised in the petition and the reasoning of learned single Judge given in the judgment impugned in this appeal.
9. Briefly stated the petitioner respondent had filed the writ petition on three grounds: firstly that the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished along with show cause notice by the disciplinary, authority and therefore, in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad v. B Karunakaran reported in AIR 1994 SC page 1094 and Union of India v. Mohd. Ramjan Khan reported in AIR 1991 SC page 471 the order imposing punishment was vitiated. The second ground was that the petitioner respondent was not afforded due opportunity in the inquiry proceedings thereby vitiating the same on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of Principle of natural justice and fair play. The last ground taken in the petition was in two parts firstly that the findings of the inquiry officer as well as the appellate authority was so perverse that no reasonable man could have reached to that finding in the absence of any evidence having any bearing with the charges leveled against the petitioner and therefore, there was no application of mind either by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority while considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice and also the grounds of appeal.
10. The learned single Judge rejected the first two contentions of the petitioner respondent holding that the inquiry report was furnished and also that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in the Inquiry. However, it is the third contention raised by the petitioner which found favour with the learned single Judge and the writ petition was allowed on that score holding that there was insufficient material to prove the charge and secondly the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have failed to apply their mind by not considering the material document placed before them which if considered would have a material bearing on the findings of the Inquiry Officer and could have altered the findings recorded. Further the learned single Judge found that the said document was deliberately concealed and not placed before the Inquiry Officer thereby vitiating the inquiry report.
11. We now proceed to examine the importance of the documents which was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority even though it was filed before them. The back ground of the charge was that the petitioner had submitted a false bill claiming reimbursement of having availed LTC. The inquiry officer had proceeded on the material before it, which included certain correspondence with the railway authorities with regard to verification of the ticket number furnished by the petitioner. The initial ticket number furnished by the petitioner were 72122-72127 of first class purchased from Allahabad on 16.5.92, which on journey were got converted into 2nd AC sleeper class and also extended up to Jammu Tavi vide receipt No. 02356 of the same date. The railway authorities while replying to the query of the department with regard to ticket Nos. 72122-72127 had only stated that the details were not traceable in the office. The reply of the Chief Booking Clerk dated 16.8.93 is filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The said reply stating that the ticket was not traceable cannot be held to mean that the said tickets were not issued from Allahabad Station. There was no specific reply by the railway authorities that the said ticket was not issued at all. The appellant did not make any further query from the railways to pin point their case that the tickets bearing such numbers were not sold by the Allahabad counter or that they were bearing fake numbers.
12. The further claim of the petitioner that he was issued receipt No. 02356 converting the first class ticket into 2nd AC sleeper class ticket and also extending the journey ticket up to Jammu Tavi was also relevant. With regard to the said receipt No. 02356 the appellant made inquiries and received the reply dated 10.10.92 from the Chief booking Clerk Northern Railway, Allahabad that the said ticket number was not issued from Allahabad from any counter on 16.5.92. Based upon these two communications of the railway officials, the inquiry officer held that the petitioner in fact did not undertake the journey and had submitted false claim for LTC.
13. Before the inquiry was concluded the petitioner himself requested the railway authorities to verify the issuance of the receipt No. 02356 dated 16.5.92 in his name for conversion of ticket from 1st Class to AC 2nd sleeper and also extension of journey. The Chief Ticket Inspector vide letter dated 30.7.93 sent his reply to the petitioner at his office address verifying the issuance of the said receipt. The contents whereof are quoted hereunder:-
14. This letter though issued on 30.7.93 certifying the issuance of receipt No. 02356 was stated to have been delivered at the official address of the petitioner but the same was neither communicated to the petitioner, nor did the appellant place it before the inquiry officer. Petitioner has claimed to have obtained a copy of the said letter subsequently. However, after the inquiry report had been submitted and the show cause notice was given to the petitioner, the petitioner in his reply dated 7.12.94 specifically mentioned about the same and also annexed the copy of the same along with his reply to the disciplinary authority. The contents of the said letter dated 30.7.93 clearly mentioned that it was issued by the ticket checking staff of train No. 2456 (Tinsukia Mail) in the name of A. Mehta and family. Until and unless the said letter was found to be forged or fabricated, the inevitable consequence would be that the petitioner and his family did undertake the journey by Tinsukia mail (2456) on 16.5.1992 and the claim for reimbursement of LTC would be correct and justified.
15. The said letter dated 30.7.93 cannot be said to be of no relevance or of little relevance with regard to the charge. In fact the said letter was vital piece of evidence unless proved to be false to upset the finding of the inquiry officer. Confronted with this situation Sri Manish Goel summoned the original record of the inquiry and the disciplinary proceedings to ascertain as to whether such letter was on record or not and whether or not it was dealt with by the disciplinary authority while passing the punishment order. The departmental record reveals that this letter was taken note of by the disciplinary authority and he also directed the vigilance department to find out about the correctness of the letter. Upon inquiry by the vigilance department from the railway authorities the letter dated 30.7.93 was not found to be a fake letter or that it had not been issued by the Chief Ticket Inspector on 30.7.93. In such circumstances, it was all the more necessary for the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to have taken into consideration the said letter and to deal with in such manner as they would deem fit. However, non consideration of the said letter clearly vitiates the order of punishment as also the appellate order.
16. A perusal of the punishment order and the appellate order it is dear that this letter dated 30.07.1993 was not taken into consideration. Both the orders do not even mention about this letter.
17. Thus we find that the decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority suffer from the vice of non consideration of material piece of evidence which was capable of upsetting the finding of the inquiry officer. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner under heading 'A' are of no help as they deal with reappreciation of evidence by the Court but none of the authorities lay down that where the process of decision making was vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence capable of upsetting the finding even then the Courts should not interfere. Further in view of the finding that there was non consideration of material evidence, the authorities referred to under heading 'B' and 'C are not relevant and therefore are not being discussed. Thus all the three grounds raised by the appellant are devoid of merit and accordingly rejected.
18. We are therefore in full agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge and do not find any reason to differ or deviate from the same. There is no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.