TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority while imposing the punishment is not valid as the disciplinary authority while coming into conclusion has elaborately discussed the IO's report, disagreement note as well as contention of the applicant. As this Tribunal cannot sit as a appellate forum on the fact findings of the disciplinary authority , we cannot interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1978 (4) TMI 235 - SUPREME COURT) wherein it is held that standard of proof required in disciplinary proceeding is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority while coming into conclusion has given his reasoning and raised reasonable doubt and thereafter come into conclusion that though there may not be any ulterior motive but there is clear negligence and devotion of duty on the part of the applicant. Thus, the findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be termed as perverse. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. With regard to interest on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fternoon on 31.01.2003 as the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Patna. After superannuation, the applicant was not paid gratuity, leave encashment and no decision was taken on the application made for commutation. (ii) A departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant for which enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry report was submitted on 16.01.2008 and the copy of the enquiry report was served upon the applicant vide letter dated 23.01.2008. (iii) Thereafter, the applicant made representation on 02.04.2008 requesting to release immediately the withheld amount along with interest payable (Annexure-B). Even then the gratuity as well as leave encashment etc. was not released. Then the applicant made another representation on 30.06.2008 to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs. (iv)Thereafter, being aggrieved with, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 105/2010 for direction to the respondents concerned to forthwith make payment of gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2010 with a direction to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs to consider the issue of rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case (Annexure-I). (x)However, no decision on the point of interest was communicated to the applicant. It is further stated that disagreement note is beyond the scope of chargesheet. Being aggrieved with, the applicant has filed the instant application. 3. It has been submitted by the applicant that UPSC has failed to consider the spirit of Rule 173-I and 11-B which are quite different. It has been submitted that as the enquiry officer has found that the action of the applicant is not ulterior motive which has already been confirmed by the disciplinary authority, thus it cannot be termed as misconduct as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Ors. Vs. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable [ 1992(4) SCC 54]. 4. It is further stated by the applicant that in the disagreement note the the disciplinary authority has himself observed that even if no evidence is there to establish ulterior motive, there is no doubt of negligence and complete lack of devotion to duty. Thus, as per the above judgment, a wrong interpretation of law or any negligence in performance of duty or error in judgment cannot be termed as misconduct and since there is no evidence of ulterior mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is duties which is clearly evident from the enquiry report of the enquiry officer which has not been denied by the respondents. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 8. The contentions raised by the applicant in para-4 are being dealt by us in the following paragraphs. 9. It is settled law that the courts in its judicial review can only interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority, if order passed in violation of natural justice or the findings are perverse. In the instant case, it is noted that the applicant was chargesheeted and proceedings were converted into Rule -9 after his superannuation in 2003. Thereafter, the enquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report, but the disciplinary authority having not convinced with the report of the enquiry officer had issued disagreement note which was served upon the applicant and the applicant in reply to that has submitted his submission by way of representation and the disciplinary authority after considering the I.O's report, disagreement note, reply of the applicant and also after giving him proper opportunity held the applicant guilty and the President had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear that the applicant has been found guilty on the ground of negligence and complete lack of devotion to duty. Thus, the allegation of the applicant that the grounds taken in his report were not considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment is not valid as the disciplinary authority while coming into conclusion has elaborately discussed the IO's report, disagreement note as well as contention of the applicant. As this Tribunal cannot sit as a appellate forum on the fact findings of the disciplinary authority , we cannot interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1978) 2 SLR SC page 46 wherein it is held that standard of proof required in disciplinary proceeding is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority while coming into conclusion has given his reasoning and raised reasonable doubt and thereafter come into conclusion that though there may not be any ulterior motive but there is clear negligence and devotion of duty on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
