JUDGMENT Y.R. Tripathi, J.
1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner, a pensioner, having retired from the post of O.S.L from the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.7.1997 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (Annexure-A 28 to the writ petition) rejecting thereby his application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Act, 1985, the order dated 3.7.1991 (Annexure-A 25 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4, imposing punishment of reduction of pay at two stages in the scale of Rs. 1,680-2,040 and order dated 31.3.1992 (Annexure-A 27 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to pay the entire arrears of his salary and other retiral benefits with interest.
2. It appears that the petitioner on 10.1.1990 was working as Upper Division Clerk, Stores in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 in the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur. It is alleged that on the aforesaid date at 12.30 p.m., petitioner incited certain employees creating thereby confusion which caused hindrance in the disposal of scraps. A board of enquiry was constituted to enquire into the incident of 10.1.1990, which required the petitioner to appear before it on 28.2.1990 at 15 hours in the office of W.M./S.A.F to give his testimony on the point of scraps disposal incident, which allegedly took place on 10.1.1990. The petitioner instead of appearing before the Board of enquiry sent a letter requesting for furnishing certain materials to enable him to give his testimony, but instead of furnishing the materials asked for by him a departmental enquiry was ordered and he was served with a charge-sheet containing two charges of gross misconduct, first that on 10.1.1990 at 12.30 p.m. while he was working as Upper Division Clerk, Stores he incited the employees and created confusion thereby causing hindrance in the disposal of the scraps and secondly that he refused to appear before the Board on 28.2.1990 at 15 hours to give his testimony regarding disposal of scraps. The enquiry officer after making enquiry held the petitioner guilty of both the charges, whereupon the disciplinary authority respondent No. 4 inflicted the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner at two stages. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the appellate authority but to no avail. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the C.A.T., under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which was dismissed, dissatisfied from which he has invoked the writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person and Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The main trust of the arguments raised by the petitioner is that there was no evidence worth the name before the enquiry officer on which he could have held the petitioner guilty of the charges, hence the disciplinary authority was not Justified in inflicting the punishment. He has also urged that he was demanding senior scale, as a result of which the respondents got annoyed and implicated and punished him in this false case. According to him, the Tribunal ignoring all these facts, has wrongly dismissed his application and there are cogent and valid reasons to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, the enquiry report and the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities. Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the respondents, highlighting the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, has argued that this is not a case in which any interference is called for by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the law laid down in High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, 2000 (1) AWC 99 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 22 ; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra,1999 (2) AWC 1115 (SC) ; 1999 SCC (L & S) 405 ; State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. S. Subramaniam, JT 1996 (2) SC 114, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., 1996 SCC (L & S) 80 and State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh, 1977 SCC (L & S) 298 and has urged that the scope of judicial review in the cases of departmental enquiries is very limited and this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the departmental authorities on the basis of the departmental enquiry. True, it is that the scope of judicial review in such cases under Article 226 of the Constitution is very narrow, nevertheless it cannot be denied that this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the decisions where on the very face of it, it appears that the authorities held the departmental proceedings in violation of the principle of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or where the decision of the authority is vitiated by consideration extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case or where the conclusion reached at by the authority is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion. In the instant case, the petitioner has strenuously urged that the decisions taken by the departmental authorities are wholly arbitrary, capricious and unsupported by the materials collected during the enquiry.
6. As stated above, the petitioner was charged on two counts. First, that on 10.1.1990 at about 12.30 p.m. while working as Upper Division Clerk, Stores, he Incited the employees and created confusion, thereby causing hindrance in the disposal of the scraps. The basis of this charge is a report of one Sri R. C. Kataria, Supervisor (A) Security. The report is Annexure-A 7 to the writ petition. During the course of enquiry statement of Sri R. C. Kataria was recorded, wherein he has stated that at about 12.30 p.m. Sri S. K. Chaturvedi, Upper Division Clerk (Stores) Sri H. C. Agarwal, Upper Division Clerk, Stores and Sri Jiya Lal of Stores reached at the time of loading. There were 10-12 persons also accompanying them and by reaching there, they started telling that the objectionable materials were being loaded in the trucks. He has further stated that such allegations and shouting by these people resulted in stoppage of loading. Sri Kataria has specifically stated In reply to question No. 10 that Chaturvedi was telling that objectionable materials are getting loaded. In answer to question No. 12, of course, he has stated about Sri Chaturvedi creating a scene, but nowhere in his statement, he has stated about any other overt act on the part of Sri Chaturvedi. In reply to question No. 14 as to whether Sri Chaturvedi insisted for immediate stoppage of loading, he stated that he did not hear such thing. From the entire evidence of Kataria, which is the solitary evidence of fact, it is not at all borne out that Sri Chaturvedi did any overt act, which would have amounted to his inciting or instigating his co-employees. At the most from the statement of Sri Kataria, it is borne out that Sri Chaturvedi was complaining about the objectionable materials being loaded. The word incite as per the California dictionary, International Edition, means to urge to a particular action, to stir up, instigate, persuade, spur, stir or set in motion. Sri Kataria has nowhere stated that at that time, Chaturvedi urged or made an appeal to the co-employees accompanying him for taking any action. There is also no material to show that Chaturvedi did anything more than complaining about loading of objectionable materials in the trucks. The enquiry officer, therefore, has without there being any evidence of Inciting or instigating on the part of Chaturvedi jumped to the conclusion that his acts at the time of loading amounted to inciting and instigating. The statement of Sri R. C. Kataria, further shows that two Darwans, namely, Sarvsri Bankey Lal and Satya Narain were also on duty along with him and were supervising the loading of the trucks. These two Darwans were though not produced by the department in support of the charge but have been produced by Sri Chaturvedi, in defence and they have not supported the charge at all, rather they have stated having not seen Sri Chaturvedi at the place of loading. Their evidence has been discarded by the enquiry officer mere on the ground that there is variance in their statement without pointing out any. Thus, even if the statement of Sri R. C. Kataria is taken to be true, still his evidence does not show that Sri Chaturvedi had Incited or instigated his co-employees. At the most, it is borne out from his statement that Sri Chaturvedi was complaining about the objectionable materials being loaded in the trucks. The evidence of R. C. Kataria further goes to show that a gun body forging was lying near the place of loading, which was alleged to have been recovered on unloading of one of the trucks. Sri Kataria has denied the recovery of gun body forging from the truck on its unloading merely on the ground that the gun body forging was lying under a banyan tree which is located at some distance from the loading point. From the evidence of Sri Kataria, it is found that his denial about the recovery of gun body forging from one of the trucks is based only on assumption. The statement of Sri Kataria shows that he being security supervisor was deputed to supervise the loading of the trucks, therefore, the loading of any objectionable materials could have cast a stigma on him about his having allowed loading of objectionable material along with scraps. He has stated that two other Darwans, Sarvsri Bankey Lal and Satya Narain too were supervising the loading work. He has also admitted the possibility of objectionable materials being loaded by the contractor's men because all the four trucks were being loaded at different place and it was not possible for three men to look after the loading of all the four trucks. According to Sri Kataria himself, he was not present throughout the unloading of the trucks and, therefore, he is not in a position to say as to whether or not any objectionable material was found on unloading of the trucks. This does not rule out the possibility of gun body forging having been recovered on unloading of one of the trucks. It will also be found that two other Darwans, who were supervising the loading work, have nowhere admitted the presence of Sri Chaturvedi at the point of loading or when halla, gulla was allegedly made during the course of loading of the trucks. Sri Y. K. Gupta and Sri M. L. Luthra have also appeared as defence witnesses during the enquiry and they have denied the presence of Sri Chaturvedi on the point of loading at the time of alleged incident. This being the position, there is absence of evidence to prove that either Sri Chaturvedi did incite his fellow employees or he did any overt act, which amounted to hindrance in the disposal of scraps. Even if the statement of Sri Kataria be believed that Sri Chaturvedi was complaining about the objectionable materials being loaded, it hardly can be taken to be causing any hindrance in the loading, more so when certain objectionable materials appear to have been recovered from one of the trucks on its unloading. Thus, no reasonable or prudent person, on the basis of materials collected during the enquiry proceeding, could have held Sri Chaturvedi guilty of misconduct for charge No. 1.
7. Now advertising to charge No. 2, we find that In requisition slip (Annexure-A-1 to the writ petition) Itself through which Sri Chaturvedi was required to appear on 28.2.1990 at 15 hours before the enquiry committee to give his testimony, the consequence of his non-appearance is given. It has been stated in the said letter that his absence in the enquiry on the aforesaid date, time and place will be treated as refusal to give testimony and the case will be further processed.
8. It would be found that Sri Chaturvedi had sought for certain clarifications through a letter (Annexure-A-2 to the writ petition) which, was not replied and the enquiry was proceeded. At the most, therefore, in view of Annexure-A-1, the enquiry could have been proceeded at the back of Sri Chaturvedi and there was no question of treating his absence in the enquiry as misconduct.
9. Thus, from the discussions above, we are of the view that there was no material before the enquiry officer on which he could have held the petitioner guilty of the two charges of misconduct on which the enquiry was held. No reasonable person on the basis of the materials available could have held Sri Chaturvedi guilty of either of the charges. This being the position, we are of the considered view that the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority as also the order passed by the appellate authority were unsustainable and the Central Administrative Authority has without any cogent and valid reason rejected the application made by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
10. In view of what has been stated above, we find force in this writ petition, which has to be allowed.
11. We accordingly allow the writ petition with costs and quashing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4.7.1997 (Annexure-A 28 to the writ petition), the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 3.7.1991 (Annexure-A 25 to the writ petition) and the order of the appellate authority dated 31.3.1992 (Annexure-A 27 to the writ petition) direct respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner and the difference of other retiral benefits which would be payable to him along with simple interest @ 9% per annum within a period of three months.