The Central Administrative Tribunal has reaffirmed the narrow scope of judicial review in departmental disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that tribunals and courts cannot act as appellate bodies to reassess evidence or substitute penalties unless the punishment shocks the conscience or procedural fairness is compromised.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer (C&W) with the South Eastern Central Railways, was found to have consumed alcohol on the day of an annual inspection by senior officials. Although he presented well during a formal briefing earlier that day, he was subsequently subjected to a breathalyzer test and blood analysis, which detected trace levels of alcohol. He claimed he had consumed prescribed cough syrup containing alcohol and was mentally fatigued, but admitted to having taken a small quantity of liquor to relax.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple layers of departmental review:
- 17 January 2014: Applicant found under influence during inspection; breathalyzer and blood tests conducted
- 4 February 2014: Major penalty charge sheet issued under Rule 3.1(ii), 3.1(iii), and 22(1)&(2) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966
- 28 May 2014: Enquiry Officer exonerated applicant on all charges except Rule 3.1(iii) (conduct unbecoming), noting no impairment in performance
- 10 October 2014: Disciplinary Authority ignored Enquiry Officer’s findings and imposed removal from service with forfeiture of pension
- 8 January 2015: Appellate Authority modified punishment to reduction by four pay stages for four years, citing applicant’s clean record and humanitarian grounds
- 8 January 2016: Revisionary Authority further reduced punishment to one year, but omitted direction on treating absence as 'dies-non'
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of all penalty orders, arguing procedural irregularities, lack of reasoned orders by the Disciplinary Authority, and disproportionate punishment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the punishment imposed in a departmental proceeding, or whether its jurisdiction is confined to reviewing procedural fairness and arbitrariness.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on Assistant Security Officer, RPF v. S. Sivagnanam and S.P. Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank to argue that the punishment was excessive and not proportionate to the misconduct. They contended that the Enquiry Officer’s finding of no performance impairment should have been decisive, and that the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the Enquiry Officer lacked reasoned justification. They further argued that the punishment of removal was disproportionate given the minimal alcohol content and absence of any safety breach.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the presence of alcohol in the system while on duty, especially for a supervisory officer responsible for 20 - 30 staff, constituted conduct unbecoming of a government servant under Rule 3.1(iii). They relied on State of U.P. v. Nand Kishore Shukla and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran to assert that the Disciplinary Authority’s findings, supported by documentary evidence, were entitled to deference. They emphasized that the applicant himself admitted to consuming alcohol, and that the procedural safeguards under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules were fully complied with.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and the settled jurisprudence on departmental proceedings. It held that judicial review in such matters is not an appellate function. The Court cannot re-evaluate evidence, assess witness credibility, or substitute its view on punishment merely because it finds the penalty harsh.
"The High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court can only see whether: the enquiry is held by a competent authority; the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed... the conclusion... is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion."
The Tribunal noted that the Enquiry Officer had conducted a five-sitting inquiry with full opportunity for defense, and that the Disciplinary Authority had provided a detailed discordant note explaining its divergence from the Enquiry Officer’s findings. The blood test and breathalyzer reports, along with the applicant’s own admission, constituted sufficient evidence to uphold the charge under Rule 3.1(iii).
The Tribunal further held that while the punishment of removal was severe, its modification by the Appellate and Revisionary Authorities demonstrated a progressive, compassionate application of discretion. The final punishment of one-year reduction in pay, with cumulative effect, did not shock the conscience of the Court. The absence of a 'dies-non' direction was deemed a minor procedural lapse, not a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal emphasized that the principles laid down in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, Rajasthan Tourism Corp. v. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan, and State of Rajasthan v. Md. Ayub Naaz barred it from interfering with the quantum of punishment absent arbitrariness or violation of natural justice - neither of which was established.
The Verdict
The applicant’s petition was dismissed. The Tribunal held that judicial review in departmental proceedings is confined to procedural fairness and arbitrariness, and that punishment cannot be substituted merely on grounds of disproportionality unless it shocks the conscience. The revised penalty of one-year reduction in pay was upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Review Is Not an Appeal
- Practitioners must frame challenges to departmental orders as violations of natural justice or arbitrariness - not as appeals on merit
- Arguments based on "punishment being too harsh" will fail unless the penalty is so extreme that no reasonable authority could have imposed it
- Tribunals and High Courts will not reweigh evidence or second-guess factual findings supported by any legal material
Documentary Evidence Trumps Oral Justifications
- Admission of alcohol consumption, even if minimal, coupled with forensic reports, creates a strong prima facie case for misconduct
- Claims of medicinal use or fatigue are not defenses unless supported by contemporaneous medical documentation and clear causation
- The burden shifts to the employee to prove that the alcohol had no impact on duty performance, not merely that it was unintentional
Disciplinary Authorities May Disagree with Enquiry Officers - But Must Reason
- A Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the Enquiry Officer’s findings, but must articulate clear, written reasons for disagreement
- Vague or conclusory disagreement notes are vulnerable to challenge
- In this case, the detailed discordant note dated 04.06.2014 satisfied the requirement of reasoned decision-making
- Practitioners should scrutinize such notes for logical coherence and evidentiary linkage
